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

[kathryn rubino]

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.

Kathryn

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