Quote:

---

The human race, and women in particular, are constantly told in subtle or overt ways that their only purpose in life is the propagation of the species. Girls read stories in which princesses meet princes and get married and have babies and it's happily ever after.

I have friends who believe so strongly in these ideas that the fact that they aren't already married at 24 and don't have children makes them think there is something wrong with them.

I find all of this to actually be very UNnatural. I very seriously doubt that there is some sort of baby drive that builds to a critical point in women, after which they become desperate to conceive. Certainly, it isn't anything that's empirical or confirmed by science. Rather, I think it's all social pressure or psychological.

So I don't really like the term biological clock and all it implies. It suggests women really ARE breeding machines, and not in control of their own desires to have a family (when or if they do).

---

Quote:

---

NGJ’s Heather Regen is a sophomore at Georgetown University- what follows is her personal reflection on the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Fluke contraception controversy. Heather also solicited reactions from several of her classmates, which are published separately and linked below. Are you a Georgetown student? Add your thoughts in the comments.

After enduring a red-eye flight out of Washington, a two-hour layover in Milwaukee and the worst airport food to grace this Earth, I suddenly wanted to turn around and fly right back to Georgetown. I had just landed in Los Angeles, and upon re-entering the world of WiFi, saw an email with the subject line: “A message from President DeGioia on Civility and Public Discourse.”

After reading President DeGioia’s email to the Georgetown community, I felt a sudden surge of pride in calling myself a Hoya. The email came as a direct response to the attacks on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and DeGioia made it clear that the university stands firmly behind her right to free expression — no matter her position on an issue that’s been particularly contentious around campus.

The debate over the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services mandate regarding contraceptives coverage has permeated discussions all over Georgetown for weeks now. In my Religion and American Politics course I’ve heard classmates quoting everything from Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” to Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” to support either side of the issue.

But the discussion isn’t one that just took place in theology classes. In Red Square, our campus’ free speech zone, H*yas for Choice helped students sign thank-you cards to President Obama. In the Intercultural Center, the Knights of Columbus made their case in a panel called “Religious Freedom and Healthcare.” Whether on the way to class, in our fabulous cafeteria or trapped in the library, Georgetown students engaged in dialogue.

One of the most upsetting results of Rush Limbaugh’s abusive tirade was its breakdown of that very dialogue. Just this Thursday, Georgetown’s Philodemic debate society argued, “Resolved: The Obama contraceptive rule violates religious freedom.” Over the course of two hours and many passionate speeches, the society negated the resolution. With strong argumentation and subtle understandings of the issue at hand, the Philodemic gave the debate the intricacy it deserved. No one called the other a “slut” or a “prostitute;” no one suggested women on contraception post sex videos online.

Rush Limbaugh’s comments, as President DeGioia wrote, represent “behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of [Fluke’s] position.”

Even more enraging is Limbaugh’s purported statement of apology. What the talk show host wrote appears more a desperate attempt to save face (and advertisers) than an effort to right his wrongs. Although Limbaugh uses the words “I sincerely apologize,” he focuses his statement on what he deems “discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress,” asking, “What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?”

The statement is not an apology at all, but a toned-down version of the last two attacks Limbaugh aimed at Fluke. There’s a world of difference between uttering the words “I’m sorry” and putting them to action. Most noticeably, the statement makes no attempt to right the wrong; it offers no solution to the degradation of dialogue on an issue that deserves the fullest delicacy and the most respectful debate.

Emma Green, a senior at Georgetown, noted in an email, “In a public debate like this, it’s easy for two sides of an issue to become a caricature of the original question.”

She sees the true question as one of “how to balance women’s health needs and reproductive rights with legitimate objections of conscience offered by those who employ them in religious communities. And that notion of balance — of finding the policy solution that maximizes the rights and health of everyone involved – can only be achieved through respectful discourse of the kind that President DeGioia so eloquently defended.”

DeGioia’s letter represented Georgetown through-and-through. In characteristic Hoya fashion, he even quotes Saint Augustine to demonstrate the power of civil discourse: ”Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

In an act not seen often enough in public discourse, DeGioia reminded us that our debates about issues like contraceptives are aimed at legitimate public policy decisions and should be handled as such. In a 24-hour news cycle fueled by advertisements and personalities, we reduce complex issues down to sound bytes.

As Georgetown junior Josh Donovan noted, “One only needs to turn on the news to see how toxic our political atmosphere is. Partisanship runs so deep that offensive comments made by people like Rush Limbaugh are more commonplace than we may care to admit.”

If Georgetown students — some of us still teenagers, some of us stepping into our early 20s — can produce engaging, respectful and eloquent debate, the least we can ask is that radio hosts and pundits don’t destroy that. In fact, we should be able to ask them to step it up.

As President DeGioia remarked, “If we allow coarseness, anger – even hatred – to stand for civil discourse in America, we violate the sacred trust that has been handed down through the generations beginning with our Founders. … This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another.” http://nextgenjournal.com/2012/03/contraception-and-georgetown-univers
ity-students-reflect/]