[eDebate] ???Overturning Roe v Wade????
Mon Apr 10 13:41:55 CDT 2006
To me this is about cooption--while we pat ourselves on the back for the
nuanced and creative ways we defend overtunring roe, we might as well pat
the right on the back for cooking that kinda crack up and say way to go, our
faith in our communities ability to delibrate has given you a new venue with
which to push your crazy agenda...i cant believe that many of you are
removed enough from the real world to think that args about the freedom of
abortion coming with the repeal are likely to do anything outside of the
rarefied halls of wherever the hell you come up with these crack pot
ideas...come on people nicole is right about this, when roe is overturned it
wont be for more abortion right or more privacy...thats not the secret ailto
plan...hey i know we will really overturn this so we can have more
abortion...what world do you live in?... Kathryn what about your legal
traianing allows you to be totally blind to politics?...I think its great
that you all have the faith in our community to contribute to this important
social discussion in a meaningful way but the risk that we fuel rightwing
forces bent on their own special kind of revolution probably outweighs the
small benefit we get...especially if those on the left are advoacting that
topic as a way to avaoid the actual political climate...
On 4/10/06, kathryn rubino <kathrynrubino at gmail.com> wrote:
> "4. The point that Nicole Richter makes about Brown v. Board resonates
> I think the Brown analogy is a false one. Overturning Brown is not
> something we as a society are likely to face in the next 20 years-- the same
> is not true for Roe. I will also underscore Hester's post-- there are lots
> of pro-choice voices out there that support overturning Roe. This is not as
> clear cut an issue as some posts seem to indicate...it almost seems... well
> debatable, from a multiplicity of perspectives....hmmmm. And I would argue
> that the ability to look at this issue critically can encourage greater
> women's participation, and furthermore it is that level of dexterity with
> one of the most salient issues feminists are likely to face that
> demonstrates the benefits of our activity.
> "5. Given the way that debate has become more personal, it seems pretty
> clear to me that debating Roe would put an additional burden on at least
> some subset of women debaters and judges.
> 6. This is not the only case that might lead to such a problem. I heard
> another respected coach say that they might find it impossible to vote for
> an aff that overturned Lawrence v. Texas.
> 7. Both of those cases are about privacy to a large extent. I think we
> need to be very careful about proposing resolutions that are likely to
> impinge on people's privacy as we debate them. And that's what I think
> of the responses to the posts by the Nicoles are missing"
> Yes debates have gotten more personal over the years, but that is a choice
> that debaters make, plenty of debaters, male and female, debate from a
> "objective" perspective. Additionally, no one is answering the Title 7
> example and how debating things that are difficult is actually educational.
> It not only forces debaters to engage a body of literature that they
> otherwise might ignore, but I found it educational on the level of teaching
> me how to deal with real world politics that become personal. And trust me,
> I get how a world without Roe can seem scary but this is really happening
> and how is society going to deal with it if some of the best minds in the
> country refuse to even debate it in an academic setting. A vote for a Roe
> resolution (and lets be clear a vote for the courts topic is not a vote to
> debate Roe) does not mandate that a debater must advocate something they do
> not believe in.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman