This is Elaine's profile:

Elaine is not a member of any Causes

Elaine supports no nonprofits

enough said?

Poor Elaine, looks like her own brainwashing by medieval superstition has taken a little too well.

Debbie: I support the people and organizations who defend freedom and human life.

As if it's any of your business.

Pauline: The standard demonization tactic used by the uniformed such as yourself to attack those who disagree with radical ideas says more about you than about me.

Elaine writes:   "The standard demonization tactic used by the uniformed such as yourself to attack those who disagree with radical ideas says more about you than about me." 

Whereas previously Elaine contradicted her own beliefs (because she obviously doesn't believe in demonizing) by calling Gillibrand a:  "radical feminist who hasn't a clue as to how her views not only hurt women beyond comprehension but is clearly a member of the brainwashed...indoctrinated generation who believe destruction of all that is good to implement pure evil is so enligtening."

I'm sorry to correct you Elaine.  You are the one demonizing women and people who disagree with your own ideas of reality.    You can't have it both ways darlin'. 

If you want to have a discussion in a civil tone, you can't start out by calling names and then whine when someone calls you on it. And be consistent.

Are you FOR demonizing or against?  And if you post your ideas on this site, then your ideas become public and therefore ARE our business.

You obviously have not problem calling feminists evil and radical, as if that were also evil.  Perhaps you have forgotten of the great historical radical, Jesus?  And do you enjoy voting on election day? You have radical feminist, women to thank for that. How about all the radicals who ended slavery?

Madam, radicals are the only people who stand up for the little guy or gal.  And some day you will realize that you, being a woman, are a little gal.  On that day you will thank the feminists who fought for your right to work and be paid for it fairly, to vote and to run for office. 

I hope that day comes soon so we can have a civil discussion.

Why would her views hurt women. Women are empowered with brains, just like men.  I've met with Kirsten Gillibrand and she is an excellent example of grace, intelligence, and someone who takes her job seriously. She is a credit to NYS both now in Congress and before when she's represented the 20th District in NYS.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Elaine!

I found it interesting that you talk about the "moral absolutes" as if they are written in stone and if you had your way, you would abolish  a woman's right to choose abortion, NOT leaving the decision of whether or not to abort  to the women who are actually having the baby and supporting it for 20 years and will be forced to live with the decision while you were trained to kill  legally for a living and in the same breath asking "how about leaving the decision of whether or not to abolish the gay policy to the men and women who are actually serving in the military and will be forced to live with the decision.

What's wrong with this picture?

Michael: Thank you for serving our country!

Debbie: There are moral absolutes. They are called the ten commandments. Of course you probably know better than God himself so let's just leave it at that all right?

Hi Debbie,

I propose to you that there is a huge difference between someone in the military defending ones country and way of life and a "mother" taking the life of an innocent unborn child.  I would suggest that the woman who is considering an abortion because she will have to support the baby for 20 years should have thought of that before she engaged in the process of conception.

Also, have you served in the military?  If so, in what branch, where, when, and in what capacity.  If you have not, then you have not earned the right to decide whether or not those that are serving should be forced to be exposed to homosexual behavior on a routine basis.

I propose to you to ask the mother or sister of a soldier or an innocent bystander (collateral damage) who has been killed in war whether there is that much difference to them. I am grateful for those who have defended America for me and my family, just as I am grateful for those who have chosen to defend the right of a woman and her doctor to make their own decision. But... the 10 commandments state: "Thou Shalt Not Murder." That is an absolute, yet man has chosen to define when one is allowed to murder legally. I'm sorry, I just don't perceive, in my own mind, that much difference.

I would also say that a woman does not engage in the process of conception by herself and that if the men who are part of that process kept their pants on, we wouldn't be faced with the decision to abort or not.

The problem simply wouldn't exist. Most men I know, however would not agree to that, so how about this...once the woman has the baby instead of aborting, that you and Elaine and all those who want to change the ROE V WADE decision commit to supporting the 20 years of the life of that child. Then I wouldn't have a problem.

Thirdly, Have you ever been pregnant, abused and living in poverty? If so, where, when and what were the circumstances? If you have not, then you have not earned the right to decide whether or not those who are living that painful existence should have to add to their excruciating lives by giving birth to yet one more human being to suffer that abuse on a routine basis.

Look, this is not about you being right or me being right. It is about the human condition and all of us trying to do the best we can with what we have. Being devisive is only adding to the fire we are walking into.

So here's what I propose: Let's agree to disagree and work together toward becoming better human beings and serving each other in LOVE, so that we don't feel the need to kill or judge each other. Yeah, I know it sounds very "airy fairy" but I truly believe it's possible and am implementing positive change in my own life...which is where it has to begin...in ourselves.

Debbie,

No, I have not "been pregnant, abused and living in poverty".  However, my wife and I did endure the parental anguish of having two of our children have their first child out of wedlock.  They chose not to kill the innocent babies.  One chose to marry and raise the child, which has been a blessing to them and us, and the other chose to place the child into an adoptive home, which was a blessing to the couple that was unable to have children.

I agree that this has nothing to do with whether you are right or I am right.  It has to do with what is wrong or right, period, based on timeless and changless moral principles declared by Someone much greater than either of us.  The day is coming, sooner than later I think, when everyone will know very clearly who was wrong and who was right when it came to issues like abortion and homosexuality.  The tragedy is that it will then be too late for people to change their minds...their eternal destiny will have already been sealed.

Debbie, I'll bet you were abused, pregnant and lived in poverty or else have been around or influenced by women who are or were because so many of your statements are illogical and irrational otherwise.

You can't see the difference between war where people are fighting against evil, oppression, despots/dictators, or their very survival and the intentional murder of an innocent child and that is extremely illogical.

I wonder what your thinking process would be if you had a few minutes to contemplate the fact that a nuclear bomb was heading straight towards your city, detonated by an Islamic fanatic who saw you as an enemy of Allah and deserved to die. Would you be equating his thinking with the "right to an abortion"?

Actually, abortion is war against the unborn who are powerless to stop the powerful from dismembering them, injecting chemicals into them, or stabbing their skulls with scissors to deflate them so they can be yanked out of their mothers wombs after dying. They have commited no crimes. They have not thought of killing the infidels. They are not responsible for being. Is there really no difference between a people fighting to eradicate evil or for their survival and the intentional destruction of a completely innocent human life?

You told me I have no right to defend the unborn against annilation by their own mothers unless I've been abused, pregnant and in poverty. Every human being has a right to defend human life for its own sake, but I have been pregnant while unmarried and lived in poverty for many years. However, I accepted the fact that I was responsible for this child's existence and because I was only 18, gave him up for adoption. I could never, ever have considered killing him because I was irresponsible.

To me, empowerment means taking responsibility for one's actions and supporting, defending, and embracing those things that are truly for the common good.

Women have made many good contributions to society and certainly have done much to make this a better world. But they have also done much harm, to themselves, and to the world when embracing an illogical and irrational ideology that pits men against women, women against their own children, and advocates the prostituion of their bodies as a false form of freedom and empowerment.

There are only moral absolutes within your own religious beliefs.  That is why our Constitution has separated religion from the government.  Our founders were very aware of how religious fanatics abused religious power and radicalized their followers to do horrific acts. People's religious beliefs belong in their own homes and not anywhere else. 

I would not expect anyone else to follow my own religious laws which number more than a mere ten commandments. And they are much stricter and have harsher punishments than Christian or Judaic law.  Unless you consider ancient Judaic law where 90% of us would have been stoned to death by now. 

In my religion Stupid men and dumb women say stupid things, they are forced to change diapers all day long without washing their hands.   I'm certain you wouldn't want that religious moral law to be part of your daily  life since you both, Michael and Elaine, obviously wrestle with logical thinking and therefore lean toward stupid.  The moral absolutes of my religion would be very difficult for you two to live with or even follow.    You would both definitely be condemned to the hell that my religion preaches.

That hell would be a place where people respect each other's beliefs and treat each other gently and compassionately, and listen to other people's ideas without calling them evil. Doesn't that sound just awfull?

I thought you'd think so.

In case you had a hard time understanding my post, there is no such religion. 

Duh.

Pauline,

You appear to be misinformed regarding the issue of the Constitution and religion.  In no way does the Constitution separate religion from the government.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an "official" state religion such as England did with the Church of England.  The "separation of church and state" (which was a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter and appears nowhere in the Constitution) does not mean the separation of God and government or of religion and politics. The First Amendment limits only the power of government - not the power of the people or of the church.

It also appears that you have no real concept of any Biblical truths.  I would suggest that you do some significant, respectful, open-minded, independent study of the Biblical claims on us as individuals and nations rather than puppeting the trite phrases so casually tossed about in conversation and various blogs by those who have no clue as to what they are talking about.

Wow. If not for all the ad hominem attacks here, we would have had a great discussion.

Since the First Amendment is my favorite, I quote, for everyone's benefit, the portion that deals with the state and religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Congress respects/identifies/favors no religion and does nothing to get in the way of anyone practicing his or her preferred religion.

Is this a great country or what? You get to believe what you want and say what you want. God bless the First Amendment.

Pauline, duh.

I was fortunate to live at a time when children actually received an education. That means I can read, write, think critically, understand pros and cons, make reasonable assumptions, and am not cluttered by fantasy/fairy tale/utopian childish notions.

Hi Tracey,

I could be wrong, of course, but from your rather naive comment about feminists not concentrating on disempowering men I suspect that you must be relatively young and have not had much exposure to how some women who have been or are prominently involved in the feminist movement view men.  Here are some interesting quotes for you.  Time and space preclude me from including a more comprehensive listing:

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." -- Gloria Steinem

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor

"A good part-and definitely the most fun part-of being a feminist is about frightening men." --Julie Burchill (b. 1960), British journalist, author

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin, American feminist

Two definitions from 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." -- Valerie Solana, once referred to as "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement".

Kind of makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

Hi, Michael-

Thanks for the great collection of quotations! Unfortunately they're all from 20th century women with misplaced anger. Tis a shame they get the most press. I guess it's not sexy to be a feminist and NOT be a hater.

Rather than being naive, I'd say I am a bit too scholarly for the likes of Ms. Steinem and her brood. My brand of feminisim comes Camille Paglia (Sexual Personae), John Stuart Mill (On the Subjection of Women, On Liberty), Virginia Woolf (A Room of One's Own), and of course, the MoAF [Mother of All Feminists], Mary Wollstonecraft, who started this whole mess with A Vindication of the Rights of Women, publication date, 1791.

Wollstonecraft would have written more on this subject, I'm sure, but she died while giving birth to her daughter, Mary Shelley, who went on to write Frankenstein.

Thanks, Michael, for helping me clarify. Here's a short read on the MoAF, if you are inclined:

http://greathistory.com/the-straight-talk-express-about-a-rather-taboo-subject.htm.

Hi Tracey,

Excellent response.  I stand corrected.  You are obviously very mature, well read, and far from being naive.  Unfortunately, your observation is correct that the more radical elements of any movement, including the feminist movement, seem to get all the press.  I will check out the link you provided.

Michael! Thanks for those great quotes from women who were pissed off by men like you!

You rock dude.  Thanks for validating feminist anger and angst!

"but with love, compassion and genuine humanity"

animals included?  and I'm not talking welfare, which is NOT humane.

Animals included, naturally, since we humans are just smarter animals in the chain of life.  I think the "dehumanization" of people by offering them jobs where they torture our fellow fury humans, is an attrocity against us as well as our fury friends. 

It all boils down to greed again, and the lust for power.  Buddhist philosophy addresses that human instinct directly and offers guidance against its dangers.  If we remember that all our instincts are designed to protect us, then we can cognitively control them when they get out of hand: eg.  ENRON folks, Madoff, Blackwater Contractors, Rumsfeld, etc.

That is why we need legislation to protect us from ourselves, from the results of testosterone poisoning (male stock traders get this while in the excitement of trading and then make dangerous decisions), and why we need more women running the world. 

Our estrogen gives us the edge on empathic justice and social policy.  It's a scientific fact.

Maybe that's why Navajo culture had the wise older women make the final decisions of their tribes?

addendum -- a continuation of the anthropocentric paradigm, whether by male or female, is not going to cut it.  we need a paradigm shift that includes human animals as well as non-human animals.

You make an excellent point, Elaine.

"Men" don't kill their unborn children, the real nasty ones wait until they are born and then send them to illegal wars to die for money and power and, in the name of more powerful, conservative men, to murder the born children of other people who look different from us. 

Now, if you were to spend your energies fighting against the attrocity of war, I'd support you 1000% percent. Anything else is just silly.

Have you been to college lately? Did you even finish high school?  Do you know your history? Your science? Do you recognize the science of evolution?

I encourage you to get an education.  It's what will free your mind and give you a vocabulary to truly engage in this kind of a discussion where you can make sense. Until then you may rant all you like, but you will not make any sense.

Nicely said!

Good Afternoon Pauline,

NOT Vagan.

I've tried it, seriously, a couple of times. My vagan freinds keep trying to find something I truly like, but so far, I still prefer my steak dinner.

Take Care,

Scooter C

FYI -- http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

Slaughterhouse tours every 20 minutes.  Any takers?