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

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Mon Apr 10 13:19:03 CDT 2006

I understand that there are plenty of ways to overturn Roe v. Wade that 
expand reproductive rights.  Here, however, are two concrete concerns:
1.  A gay or lesbian judge who "has to" vote to overturn Lawrence v. Texas 
and limit her/his own privacy and sexuality rights because that's the 
argument that wins on the flow.
2.  An 18 year-old debater on the negative who has just had an abortion and 
has to listen to a narrative-based 1AC that overturns Roe from the right.  
I'm not sure this is good for that student's development.
I think these things will happen.  Other things will probably happen that 
are good.  I think everyone needs to think about these arguments, but I also 
think we shouldn't just dismiss the claims out of hand.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University

>From: nrichter at umsis.miami.edu
>To: "Steven D'Amico" <stevendamico at gmail.com>
>CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] ???Overturning Roe v Wade????
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
>I am sure Nicole Colston will respond to this, but I feel the need to do so 
>Quoting Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com>:
> > I'm really confused by this post. I see to two different points. The
> > topic
> > process is not open (fair opinion, while I disagree with it) and
> > debating
> > roe v wade is bad for women in debate.
>What do you think is good about the topic selection process? Do you not 
>the lack of womyn on the committee is a problem?
> > My opinion is that it's about time the community debates roe. Not
> > because
> > it's a womyns issue (which it obviously is) but because it's a timely
> > issue
> > which is about to be adressed by our government. Remember all those SC
> > nominations?
>You conceed that this is a womyn's issue (which seems like perhaps womyn 
>be consulted about this issue), but that is not as important as the fact 
>it is a current event. There are tons of other current events we could be
>debating (refer to the list Nicole made in her original post like 
>why are we choosing to focus on this particular issue?
> > Nicole, I'm not trying to be a patriarchal asshole (I've been accused of
> > it
> > before, I like to point out I'm just an asshole to everyone, not just
> > womyn)
> > But I just do not understand this statement:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > I do not understand how including Roe means the community has no respect
> > for
> > Women. Please explain it to me. If the lack of this fact seeming obvious
> > to
> > me is an indication of me being a patriarch or whatever, tell me why so
> > I
> > can understand.
>Explain to me how debating this issue will increase female participation in 
>activity? There is only a risk that some womyn will feel personally 
>emotionally or intellectually from this debate, thus decreasing female
>participation. Because this is a womyn's issue, as you yourself have 
>of course it will effect womyn in this community and the fact that womyn 
>not consulted seems to prove the lack of respect. Moreover, the way it
>was "mentioned" in the e-debate posts with ZERO discussion on how this 
>effect womyn in the community is major oversight.
>Nicole Richter
>University of Miami
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list