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

kathryn rubino kathrynrubino
Mon Apr 10 14:12:36 CDT 2006

Why isn't all of this more reason why we _should_ debate it?
It seems to me that this post is an overview on the framework debate-- Andy
is advocating why Affirmatives should not be allowed to leverage
the critical advantages of the 1ac against the neg's offense and instead be
stuck with the fiat-based disads.

To the extent that I am ignoring politics it is my debate training, not my
legal training that allows me to do that.  But more to the point I do not
believe that is what I am doing.  "Real World" feminists and pro-choice
advocates believe Roe is a bad decision, why can't we even talk about that
in a debate context?  This is a debate that people can have and I don't
think we should ban it from the topic.


On 4/10/06, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> with
> me."
>  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
> some
> 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.
> Kathryn
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060410/ad29975a/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list