[eDebate] 'Roe' and What I am NOT trying to do. . .

Bryan Grayson bryan.grayson
Wed Apr 12 20:45:20 CDT 2006


Nicole says:

"The following is the worst thing I have read so far, from Marissa- "People
who have had an abortion don't necessarily have to talk about it - like I
said the debates within this community should hopefully be a lot more
high-tech than that."  

What good is a debate about abortion law if people who have had abortions
can't access the debate??? Shouldn't the resolution provide safety as well
as ground??  Also, when does this community stop priveleging technique over
humanity?"

 

Why in the world are you offended by that? She was merely pointing out that
no one would be forced to advocate a pro-life position. And, people who've
had an abortion obviously get to access the debate should they choose. They
get to go negative against overturn Roe affirmatives. Did you read Marissa's
post or did you find one sentence that you could quote out of context in
order to make some bogus argument that people are calling for technique over
people's humanity? Plus, your argument is really not making sense any more.
I thought you were concerned that a topic that called for overturning Roe
was too personal for women who have had abortions and now you're concerned
that they can't access debates about abortion?

 

When we debate about social issues then of course people are going to be
affected personally. No one is denying that debating about abortion may have
profound implications for some women in the activity. However, the argument
that you have fundamentally no answer to is that your same warrants could be
advanced to justify not debating affirmative action, euthanasia,
immigration, and just about anything else. Yes, abortion affects your
control over your body in a very serious way. But the issue of affirmative
action also can touch the issue of one's own personhood and their ability to
advance and overcome obstacles that have been created as a legacy of slavery
and a history of racial oppression in this country. Is it not healthy for us
to debate about that? As a community, we're a diverse group of people, it is
inevitable that people will sometimes be uncomfortable with issues that
arise, but I hardly think it is a solution for the community to decide that
it is unwilling to address those issues.

 

As for your claim that you aren't teaching your students what to think, you
are. You're presuming that overturning Roe is a fundamentally unjust action
and saying that you're willing to deny your debaters a right to participate
under this topic. Regardless of whether they've spoken up, there are
pro-life voices in this community (including women). Your arguments that we
should craft the resolution in a more positive manner to ensure the
affirmative gets to increase or protect abortion rights delegitimates the
perspective of those people.

 

Like it or not, it is the United States Supreme Court which will determine
the scope of abortion rights in this country for the foreseeable future. The
people on the frontlines of the pro-choice movement better have a good
understanding of the constitutional underpinnings of Roe and be equally
knowledgeable about the legal grounds that will be used to justify its
overturn if they plan to defend it because it will continue to face
challenges. There is not a better way to produce effective advocates of
abortion rights than to have a debate about the merits of Roe v. Wade.

 

Bryan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060412/ab098057/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list