[eDebate] ???Overturning Roe v Wade????

nrichter at umsis.miami.edu nrichter
Mon Apr 10 11:42:23 CDT 2006


I completely agree with Nicole. My initial reaction was the same. Debating Roe 
v. Wade is horrifying! If the arguments about policy education and training are 
correct, I will not be a part of training future policymakers and lobbyists to 
form more persuasive arguments for overturning this ruling. If debate 
influences public discussion on the issue, I will not risk increasing the 
likelihood of the decision being overruled. I would also leave the activity 
because the potential impact of this topic on the current political climate is 
too risky. This topic creates a specific barrier to debate that only womyn have 
to deal with. Womyn should not be forced into a position where they have to 
debate or judge something they have or potentially could have a real personal 
stake in. I don't think this community would ever consider debating the pros 
and cons of Brown v. Board of Education because it would obviously be racist, 
but one of the strongest civil rights decisions for womyn is fine to debate 
because it is a "current event." It is very revealing of our community that we 
will finally debate a "womyn's issue" so long as it is done through a 
completely conservative approach that advocates taking rights away. With the 
already low number of womyn competing, coaching, and judging in this activity, 
(just look at Neil's most recent post), how could people possibly consider this 
topic? The complete oversight of the potential damaging effects this will have 
on female participation in debate reaffirms an overlooked truth: this community 
is sexist, and only a small portion of the community seems to give a damn! 

Oh, and by the way, there is not a single womyn on the new topic committee. Why 
is that?


Quoting Nicole <nicole.colston at gmail.com>:

> Okay, I thought this was a silly rumor until the recent Ballot postings
> by
> mancuso.  It was hard to avoid profanity in writing this e-mail and I
> definitely have not planned my formal and large-scale attack on this
> idea but . . .
> 
> The Question:
> I wanted to know if anyone else thought that including "abortion"- ie
> overturning Roe vs. Wade- as part of the courts topic was a REALLY AWFUL
> AND
> PERSONALLY DEVASTATING IDEA! ?
> 
> #?#**%5$$%#$#!#%%#%*(&^^%%#%$%^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> For the Topic Committee:
> I hope this is not someone's idea of including of women's issues in the
> topic.  Please consider addressing women's concerns from a different
> issue
> perspective, for ex. pornography or employment practices, or just not
> at
> all!!!!
> 
> For the Community:
> I will WITHDRAW my squad's participation in NDT/CEDA debate without
> hesitation next year if Roe vs. Wade is included on the ballot.  I am
> sick
> over the extent in which this "activity" has no respect for women and
> fear
> the effects on female participation if Roe v Wade is included.
> 
> Thoughts on the topic process:
> 1) I do not think we should vote on a topic area that does not have a
> topic
> paper.  How could I anticipate something as foul as this?
> 2) I feel politically neutralized as a professional in this community,
> as a
> woman, and as a small squad coach by the way this process occurs.  I do
> not
> support the elitist back-room and ignorant politics that dictate the
> process.  Where, when, and by who are these decisions being made?  Why
> aren't the "Minutes" from topic meetings posted on edebate?  Was there
> a
> topic meeting at CEDA?  Why aren't students involved?  Why aren't
> experts in
> issue areas involved?
> 3) I would like the thank and encourage those who seem to be a moving to
> a
> more open! and researched! topic process.  I know that we have
> committed,
> intelligent, and caring people in this community, it is just hard to
> see
> sometimes.
> 4) Let's make the change now, this year.  I hope to be in Kansas City
> and
> would like to invite anyone who is financially strapped to contact me
> about
> sharing rides/rooms/resources.  Maybe the topic hosts could identify
> cheaper
> camping areas, train/bus options, affordable food options.
> 5) I think we should webcast the meetings.  Everyone should be able to
> watch
> and IM ideas/responses to the meeting.
> 
> Sending my love for debate- Nicole
> 
> --
> Take a visible stand for peace!
> 





More information about the Mailman mailing list