Noonan on Fluke

Peggy Noonan on Fluke

What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they’re not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That’s not a stand, it’s a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.

Read her whole report on the DNC here.

  • Chris

    Excellent statement, although I’m not sure if, by the definition of the word Rush uses for her, she cannot be seen as such. Regardless, it is one of the best capsulizations I have seen on the matter. And Patheos, are you aware that there is one of those obnoxious “I am a Mormon” adds showing up on your post?

  • Will

    Instead of name calling, why not stick to making the case for your own causes, policies, or candidates?

    • AnneG

      Will, I assume this comment was aimed at Sandra who just graduated from Georgetown and gave a speech to the DNCC slandering the school where she received her degree and 1/2 of the US. Right?

      • Maria

        Graduating from an expensive university doesn’t make you smarter, and it certainly doesn’t mean that she can speak for womanhood as an expert. I am a woman. I have as much value as Miss Sandra – perhaps even moreso because I’m older and wiser. In fact, my degree is from the school of hard knocks, one that taught me that you should never expect anything free for nothing. More than anything, as a woman, a mother and grandmother, I resent that Miss Fluke has brought women to a level that only my privates are considered my sole importance. I have a mind, values and intellect that should be taken into account. I lost my job, my home and my savings. Now I worry about where my next meal will come from. I worry and worry, and none of those worries has to do about contraception which incidentally can be obtained so inexpensively that only the dumb, or as in the case of Sandra, a political activist with an agenda, made it an issue. In the meantime, real women’s issues go down the drain because of this shyny piece of diversion or baitch and switch. Basic line, you want your contraception and abortions. So be it. It’s your choice, and one that you’ll have to live with, but don’t you dare tell me that I have to pay for it, because that makes me your accomplice and that I will not do.

        • Qualis Rex

          Maria – never having met you or read anything from you before, I can tell you are indeed much wiser from the way you argue and present your thoughts and opinions in such a succinct yet compelling manner. So, applause for you here as you deserve it just as much (as you rightfully point out).

          On a separate yet related note, Georgetown gets what it deserves here. They have been promoting this modernist, heretical and dissenting agenda since the 70′s and are only nominally Catholic at this point. Not surprising they spawn such poster-children for immorality. Shame on the Jesuit leadership.

  • Andy

    The reason the government should pay for birth control pills is to prevent abortions and to ensure that every baby is born out of love. The virgins in the Catholic church are disgusted by sex but thankfully we don’t live in a theocracy.

    • English Catholic

      I am both a Catholic and a Virgin and sex doesn’t disgust me per say even though because I hope to be a Priest I will never engage in it.

      You want to ensure every child is born out of love? then do what Catholics do and reserve sex to marriage, oh and by the way why do you want the government to take responsibility for your choices? methinks someone has an entitlement problem

      • Micha Elyi

        “Entitlement problem”? Ha! It’s a “covet thy neighbor’s goods problem”.

    • AnneG

      Andy, I can post a long list of reputable studies that disprove your contention. Abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy. It carries with it many benefits: freedom from STD’s; more security in marriage; responsibility; self-control; real self respect. Passing out contraceptives encourages promiscuity, resulting in increased STD rates, broken relationships, out of wedlock births and even cancer. If you had ever had a 24 or 28 year old patient with cervical cancer caused by HPV contracted through multiple sexual contacts you would understand what I am saying. Sex carries responsibility and isn’t just for fun.

      • Nathaniel

        Abstinence is not the only way to prevent pregnancy. Your ignorance is both predictable and dismaying.

        • AnneG

          Sorry, Nathaniel, I am not ignorant on matters of conception. There is NO 100%effective form of contraception except abstinence. NFP works well. The pill and implants have a predictable failure rate as does sterilization. Condoms and other barriers are notoriously unreliable. And every one of those except abstinence and NFP have side effects from mild to catastrophic.
          Btw if you want to communicate you might change your approach. Calling somebody ignorant does not encourage me to listen to your opinion.

          • Nathaniel

            Lets see, there’s oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation. Three 100% effective ways of preventing pregnancy while still having sex.

            Ask Bristol Palin just how well abstinence works.

            BTW, just what are the “mild to catastrophic” side effects of condoms and other barriers?

        • Qualis Rex

          Nathaniel, your ignorance is both predictable and idiotic. Of course we were talking about the one form of sex that requires contraception if trying to prevent pregnancy (and incidently, I would wager big money you are entirely unfamiliar with this type of sex). You seem to delight in trolling this blog with undeducated, predictable and lackluster comments. Is there a reason for this? Are you just bored with nothing to do in life or simply another homosexual anti-catholic biggot with an axe to grind? Either way, you are not saying anything compelling or new…it’s all been said by your ilk ad nauseam, so you can go…your work here is complete(ly unwanted).

          • Nathaniel

            So you admit that abstinence isn’t the only way to prevent pregnancy. Cool. Big of you to admit it.

            And the fact that you assume I’m gay is utterly adorable.

  • Eric Hester

    Father Longenecker, Father Longenecker, how could you? Such heresy on your blog. How could you write about us English in an earlier blog, “Their national game takes four days” when every civilized person in the world knows that test match cricket lasts FIVE days.

    Not everyone knows that the first test match ever was played between the MCC ( the premier cricket club of England) and the Gentleman of the United States. That is true – but it is an additional part of our English humour that soon the fixture lapsed because the United States could not find eleven gentleman.

    Keep up your most interesting blog.

    God bless –
    Yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

    Eric Hester

  • veritas

    Nathaniel said: “Lets see, there’s oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation. Three 100% effective ways of preventing pregnancy while still having sex.”

    It’s well and truly time that this vicious lie was put to sleep.

    These aberrations you have mentioned are NOT, in any sense of the word, “ways of having sex”.
    Even the most elementary science book will give you a definition of what having sex is for any species – and it does NOT encompass the aberrations you listed. They are not sex but simply crude and medically dangerous ways of mutual or self stimulation.
    Why medically dangerous?
    Because a couple of them greatly increase the chance of transmission of a whole range of nasty disease including the deadly AIDS and Hep B.
    And I won’t even begin to go into the ultimately mind numbing, self absorbed, psychological death they induce in the perpetrators.

    • Nathaniel

      “Even the most elementary science book will give you a definition of what having sex is for any species – and it does NOT encompass the aberrations you listed. ”

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33587754/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/fruit-bats-use-oral-sex-prolong-deed/#.UE36PVGQmjI

      Apparently nature didn’t get the message.

      “Because a couple of them greatly increase the chance of transmission of a whole range of nasty disease including the deadly AIDS and Hep B.
      And I won’t even begin to go into the ultimately mind numbing, self absorbed, psychological death they induce in the perpetrators.”

      (Citation needed.)

      By the way, do you want to know the safest kind of sex? Lesbian sex. Never a single recorded instance of female to female sexual transmission of HIV.

      I guess that means by your standards its the best kind of all.

      • Nathan

        Two quick points, Nathaniel.
        1) Just b/c an animal does something does not mean it is natural for a human to do it. E.g. my dog poops on my front lawn, if I did so I would be arrested.
        2) “Sex” can mean 1)biological sex (i.e. male or female) or 2) an abbreviation for “sexual intercourse” aka coitus, which requires a male and female (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coitus) . As “Lesbian” is neither a biological sex (definition 1) nor can two women engage in coitus (definition 2) the term “Lesbian Sex” is a contradiction.
        Pax Vobis.

        • Nathaniel

          You still have yet to offer any support for how its “unnatural” to engage in any sex act I listed, or how they offer worse consequences than the particular kind that you like.

          And yes, they are kinds of sex. Not exactly a new concept. Been defined and noted in scientific and psychological community for years. Just because the Catholic Church refuses to admit it, doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.

          And if lesbians can’t have sex, then I fail to see how the can call them sinners for all the lesbian sex they’re not having.

          And two can play the dictionary game:

          “Sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman. ” Dictionary.com.

          Are you done with petty semantic games? Can we have an actual discussion now?

          • Nathan

            1) The definition of the term “sex”. If we take it to me coitus (the historic meaning of sexual intercourse) then Lesbian Sex is not sinful, it is simply impossible – despite what dictionary.com might say. It is not a “semantic game” to define a key term in the argument we are having, rather it is essential to AVOID playing “semantic games.” How can we argue over whether “lesbian sex” is the safest version of sex if we don’t understand what sex is? Or, for that matter, how can we discuss whether the “sex acts” you listed are unnatural if we haven’t defined “sex act”?

            2) “because the Catholic Church refuses to admit (your definition of sex), doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.” True, which is why I didn’t make this argument. Of course you should note that the “scientific and psychological community” declaring your definition to be valid does not make it so (argumentum ad verecundiam).

            3) “And if lesbians can’t have sex, then I fail to see how the (sic) can call them sinners for all the lesbian sex they’re not having.” All sins are not sexual in nature. It is possible for two women with same sex attraction to commit a sin with each other, even while not having sex.

            4)”Can we have an actual discussion now?” I don’t know. First, you’d have to be willing to define “sex”, which you have yet to do. I have offered a definition, the historic definition of coitus. What do you propose to replace it with?

            Pax Vobis.

  • Nathan

    Let’s set aside the question of whether “homosexual sex” is in fact sexual intercourse. For the sake of argument, we will define “homosexual sex” as “same sex genital stimulation” as we should both be able to agree to that definition. Now let’s focus on the real question: whether “homosexual sex” is unnatural. It is. Why? Every act which is not ordered to its natural end is an unnatural act and “homosexual sex” is not ordered to the natural end of sex. Therefore, “homosexual sex” is an unnatural act.
    Pax Vobis.

    • Nathaniel

      What is the natural end of sex? How is natural defined?

  • veritas

    I’ll say it again – you need to read any science text book to find out what sex is and what it is designed for. Whether the homosexuals like it or not (and they don’t), sex is designed for procreation. The fact that it is also enjoyable is part of the design to keep a species going. It is not designed for weird, non procreational acts, that are designed purely to stimulate, without having any connection to the main purpose of sex.
    No amount of twisting and rearranging of the facts will change reality.

    You might like stimulating, non procreational physical acts, that involve the genital organs – but that is not sex. It is what it is, pure and simple.

    • Nathaniel

      Really? If that is the case, why aren’t humans like other species on the planet who only engage in copulation at specific biologically determined mating seasons? Like cats in heat, or ferrets, or beetles, or bees, or 99% of all other animals?

      If sex is only for mating, then why do humans have a sex drive?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X