A Response to Sandra Fluke

Should we be in support of abortion? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

While I have rarely gone after speeches that have been given in politics here, Sandra Fluke will be an exception. I won’t deny at the outset that I am thoroughly Republican and Conservative. I was interested in seeing what she had to say seeing as the only thing I can think of she’s known for is the pushing that health care should cover birth control. This said from someone who is studying law and generally, you have to make good money to do that.

Put this in perspective. My Mrs. and I have the case with both of us being unemployed now and we still pay for our own. It costs about $25 a month. We’re hardly going broke on that.

At any rate, let’s go through the speech and see what she said. For any interested, the transcript I have comes from the Daily Kos and will be linked at the end. Fluke starts off with this:

“Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn’t hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman.”

I think she has a great idea! Why should we accept decisions made by men concerning women when not a single woman is on the panel that decides! Such a decision should be seen as automatically invalid!

You know, kind of like the Supreme Court panel that decided on Roe V. Wade and consisted of all men.

I wonder if Fluke would stand by that decision or not. Could it be that the main point to look at is not “Who made the decision” but “Why did they make the decision?”

Fluke goes on to warn us about two futures for our country. What does she say?

“In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs.”

Because we’ve seen all the support that has come out for women like Ann Romney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others. Numerous women have been insulted. Has Sandra Fluke forgotten the recent comments of Jason Biggs? Is Sandra Fluke unaware of the women who spoke at the RNC? In fact, for Fluke, let’s go back and talk about Carrie Prejean. All she did was say that marriage is between a man and a woman and before too long, she was being joked about in the media with jokes being made about her body. Yes. There was an attempt to silence Prejean.

Btw, this would be in the name of tolerance as well.

Next she says

“Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party.”

We’ll be eagerly awaiting for the repudiation of people like Jason Biggs. I personally do not endorse anyone who speaks slurs in such a way regardless of their party. It is ironic that she makes such a statement while talking about bigotry. Which side is it that is most often wanting to call someone a bigot?

“An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it;”

I’m still unsure of what she’s talking about. We have no problem getting birth control here, but of course, it’s most likely Fluke has in mind that other form of birth control called “abortion.” It never seems to occur to her that there could be actual moral objections to abortion. Fluke and others have this idea that the reason people want to ban abortion is that there is some sort of war on women going on.

“in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again”

This is likely about Todd Akin. Keep in mind Romney and others came out against that statement. Ann Coulter even wrote a piece demanding that Todd Akin drop out of the race. We try to clean up our own house.

What does Fluke want instead?

“First of all, we’d have the right to choose.”

The right to choose what? For instance, can I say I want to live in a country where I have the right to shut down someone just because they’re a woman? There is such a thing as the freedom to choose, but the goal of freedom is to choose the good and not just choose what you’d like. The question we have to ask is not “Do we want the freedom to abort?” but rather “Is this a good freedom to have?”

One of my contentions in the abortion debate is that we do not deny that there is always a good desired in the case of abortion. Women can abort for safety from lovers, for financial security, for their health, for their jobs. These in themselves are not bad things. The question is are we seeking good means to those things. Is abortion a good means to a good end or is it a bad means to a bad end? If it is the latter, we should seek to do away with it. If it is the former, then let us keep it.

If people like myself are right, abortion is not a great giver of freedom. It is a great limiter. It limits the freedom of the baby to exist. Sandra Fluke may get to choose, but by her actions, the baby she could carry will never get to choose. IF we keep in mind how many of those aborted babies are female, then we could easily say that the real war on women is coming from the pro-abortion side and the ones who really value women are the pro-life said.

It is sad that part of the view that we have a war on women is because some people are against abortion. Is that the only way women can be free? Women can only be free if they are allowed to have sex without consequences? For those who would be supposedly against turning women into sex objects, why is it that they treat themselves only according to a sexual purpose? Looking at my own Mrs., sex is a great part of our relationship, but it is certainly not the only part. Let us not deny that it is important to realize women are sexual beings, but they do more than just sex. My wife is an encouragement, a support, she fixes meals, she takes care of the house, she listens to a lot of my crazy ideas, and she is a great comfort in any time of distress I have. Sex for us is an important part of that expression of our love for one another and one could say the greatest expression of that love, but it is not the only aspect we each have.

“in which we decide when to start our families.”

You have that right right now. You can do that. We are doing that. I do not see any reason to think that this is going to change. Listening to Sandra Fluke, you’d think that all Republicans want women to be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen again. It just isn’t so. Many of us believe in the great things women can do and encourage them. That is one reason so many women were speakers at the RNC.

“An America in which our president, when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters—not his delegates or donors—and stands with all women. And strangers come together, reach out and lift her up. And then, instead of trying to silence her, you invite me here—and give me a microphone—to amplify our voice. That’s the difference.”

We eagerly await the news of all the standing up that was done for Carrie Prejean. We also look forward to the support that is to be given to the women that have been slandered by Jason Biggs. Or is it rather the case that only certain women get that kind of treatment? You will get the favors if you walk the line of the feminist movement. As soon as you come out as being pro-life, you are not worthy any more.

Not everything has been covered of course, but what we see in Fluke’s speech overall is simply an appeal to fear as if we will suddenly live in the supposed Dark Ages again if Republicans get elected. Well I have a fear as well. I have a fear about how many more babies could be killed in the future if this trend continues. I worry about what will happen if personal autonomy becomes the rallying point for America instead of the good of the society as a whole. I worry about people who are listening more to emotion than to reason and data.

The greatest freedom for women would in fact be the freedom to be women, and part of that would be to be able to celebrate the gift of being able to give birth, something that only a woman can do and thus something incredibly feminine. It is a shame the so-called party of women just doesn’t see it that way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The link to Fluke’s talk can be found

About these ads

Tags: , ,

One Response to “A Response to Sandra Fluke”

  1. Daniel Eaton Says:

    One of the things that stuck me about her not being invited to speak in a hearing about contraception is that it was NOT a hearing about contraception. It was a hearing to hear from religious leaders on the mandate that religious organizations be forced to cover it. It was a religion/insurance hearing that heard from pastors, rabbis, and priests. So it started out with spin and deception and went downhill from there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,021 other followers

%d bloggers like this: