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

[dbteam]

the only argument why the scenario played out in point #1 is any different 
than an anarchist judge who "has to" vote for a plan that advocates gov't 
action is founded on an implict hierarchy in which one person's values are 
assumed to be more important and 'more deeply believed' than another's. the 
anti-abortion judge (yes, they exist) would have to "deny" their own beliefs 
to vote AFF on the kind of "progressive" privacy topic advocated by some in 
this thread.

as for point #2, am i crazy for thinking that an 18-year old who has had an 
abortion whose FIRST or PRIMARY or MOST TRAUMATIC experience with the 
arguments of anti-abortion come from a debate round rather than a) their own 
research into the matter, b) protesters outside the clinic, c) the news, d) 
friends or relatives who disagree with their decision has mal-devlopment 
issues that run waaay deeper than getting their life values challenged in a 
debate round?

hester


>===== Original Message From "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com> =====

>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

>>as

>>well:

>>

>>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

>>think

>>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

>>should

>>be consulted about this issue), but that is not as important as the fact

>>that

>>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

>>pornography),

>>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

>>the

>>activity? There is only a risk that some womyn will feel personally

>>excluded

>>emotionally or intellectually from this debate, thus decreasing female

>>participation. Because this is a womyn's issue, as you yourself have

>>mentioned,

>>of course it will effect womyn in this community and the fact that womyn

>>were

>>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

>>would

>>effect womyn in the community is major oversight.

>>

>>Nicole Richter

>>University of Miami

>>

>>_______________________________________________

>>eDebate mailing list

>>eDebate at ndtceda.com

>>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>

>_______________________________________________

>eDebate mailing list

>eDebate at ndtceda.com

>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate