Friday, February 23, 2007

I Love This

"A crime which is the crime of many none avenge." ~ Lucan

A 70 year old "retired member of the U.S. military " proved crime doesn't pay recently in Costa Rica, according to this article from AOL news.

He killed a mugger with his bare hands and guess what? The Costa Rica Police let him back on the ship to continue his trip!

If this had happened in America, he would have been arrested, charged with murder, convicted, and then sued by the dead man's family. And he would have lost, especially if he was sued in one of our many Liberal courts.

America is still the greatest country in the world, political correctness notwithstanding, but this is one time that the crybaby sob sister Liberal whacko's in America would do well to sit up and take notice.

"Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap" Gal. 6:7.

The mugger had a criminal record as long as your arm, so he got what he deserved, in my opinion. Had he lived long enough, he might have even discovered something that Americans have long known:

Don't mess with a United States Military man!

We need guys like this on regular patrol on the streets of our cities.

I love this!


Gayle said...

A "good news" post at last! I've been all over the place today, and it's all "gloom and doom." The only gloom and doom I see here is what happened to the mugger whom I have absolutely no sympathy for.

You are right, Mark. Here in America the man would have been charged with murder. The district attorney would have more than likely presented the mugger as a poor man down on his luck through no fault of his own, charging that the man who killed him should have stopped short of that.

I'm sure the mugger thought that, because the man was elderly that he would be an easy target. Surprise, surprise!

mudkitty said...

Why would you kill a mugger?

When I was mugged I had only $40 dollars on me, and the guy had a gun pointing right at me. He said he was only doing it because he was desperate. I said, I'm in near similar straights and would you let me at least keep $20 bucks? I said this at gunpoint, I kid you not. He said to me "Your crazy, but give me 20 bucks." I said, thank you. I kept one 20, he took the other, then I promptly went to the nearest place of business and called the cops.

Very Rev. Fr. Gregori said...

MudKitty: Not all situations are the same, and you were damn lucky. I know of many cases where the victims of muggers complied and turned their money over to the bastards and then had their brains blown out any way.

I say hooray for the geriatric muuger slayer.

ELAshley said...

It's sad the mugger's life had to end so abruptly, but... Galatians 6:7 and all that...

What is most surprising is the Costa Ricans allowing this 'tourist' to get back to his vacation. Especially in this world climate of 'Hate America'.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, it sucks that the mugger was killed. There's no way he can turn over an new leaf now. Than again...oh well...

Liam said...

...because vigilante 'justice' (and the need for it!) is a sure sign of a civilised society!

Also interesting to note that the absolute sanctity of human life doesn't apply in this case. Killing an embryo is murder, but killing a fully sentient human adult is "Good news," "Got what he deserved," worthy of "Hooray!" We are even treated to a bible verse by way of justification.

Again, interesting to note that the verse used is a quote from a man who interprets God's words rather than the words of God himself. I suppose using Matthew 5:38-44 wouldn't have made you feel as good about the incident. Exodus 20:13 or Deuteronomy 5:17 would obviously have been highly inappropriate in this situation.

Lone Ranger said...

There is absolutely no evidence that the tourist intentionally killed the GUN WEILDING mugger. He got the guy in a choke hold, he broke the guy's collar bone and the guy died. Who knew?

Trader Rick said...

It is a sad commentary on the moral decay and utter decadence of our society that we would have poor deluded bloggers posting to defend the mugger. Unfreaking believable!! It's a world turned upside down!!

Mark said...

Yeah, you are right. Death is a little extreme for a guy with a long criiminal record carrying a gun and threatening to use it on a group of innocent elderly people just lawfully minding their own business.

Maybe the old guy should have allowed his group to get robbed and possibly murdered, and maybe the mugger would have got caught.


And then again, maybe some bleeding heaert sob sister Liberal would have taken compassion on the poor mugger and talked him into discontinuing his entire life of crime willingly.

Then the whole world could sit arm in arm with the old guy and the mugger around the campfire and sing Kum Ba Ya.

How about that? World peace could be achieved if we just let a mugger terrorize a group of elderly tourists!

mom2 said...

To even compare a mugger to an unborn baby who is completely innocent, helpless and never yet given a chance to mind boggling. I suggest liam read Romans 1 while he is reading the Bible.

mudkitty said...

It's a sad commentary on humanity when someone falsely claims that Liam is defending a mugger. That's not what he did, and when you say that you bear false witness against your neighbor, in other word, you break a commandment.


Personally, I actually agree somewhat with the so-called Lone Ranger on this, despite the experience I recounted. I think when faced with a gun one does have the right to assume you life is being threatened, and you have a right to defend your VERY LIFE in the manner you see fit.

But often times, you can defend yourself by being smart, as I did.

Then there are times you can't. I don't know if you guys are familiar with the Harvey Family
murders (from Richmond, Vir.) but...well, let if suffice to say, that up till 1/1/06, I had never known anybody who had been murdered. That's when the rubber hit's the road in terms of issues like, say, the death penalty.

They're was only one or two scenarios, out of an infinity of scenarios, whereby a gun in the house would have saved the Harvey Family. And there was no "talking" to the killers. Even mudkitty couldn't have talked her way out of that one.

If anyone is interested, please go to the Richmond Dispatch/online for info. There is a foundation in the Family's name.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"DEath to America"

Is that a gun pointed at our heads, Mudkitten?

BTW, I don't believe your mugging story for a nano-second!

rusty shakelford said...

oh look mudkitty disagrees with someone! who knew that would happen.

you were never mugged, you just made it up.

mudkitty said...

I would call you liars, only you're not even in the position to be liars.

Very Rev. Fr. Gregori said...

Just an after thought to this whole thing.

Why is it that we as private citizens, are told that we must show constraint when faced with a threatening situation, where by our lives are in danger at the hands of another individual, and we are not to use deadly force unless we are absolutely sure that we are going to be killed (by then of course it could be too late), but a police man can shoot to kill if someone even so much as pulls a knife?

If a private citizen kills an attacker or intruder, the State says that the citizen acted in a reckless manner and if they had to shoot, they should have just shot to wound. But in the case of the police, they are held up as heros and doing their job. They had to should the suspect because the officer's life was in danger.

What makes the police man's life worth more then yours or mine?

I have to side with the government of Costa Rica.

Mark said...

Mom2, While I respect Liam, I have to say it is possible that he reads the Bible but not probable.

I won't debate him on the Bible because in order to use the Bible to make ones point, I believe one has to believe what one reads. Liam doesn't believe the Bible or he wouldn't be gay.

Marshall Art said...

Wow! So much to say!

First, to be gay is not necessarily a problem. To engage in gay behavior is. Would I be a thief if only I did covet another's goods, or would I need to actually take the goods to qualify? Desire isn't enough. Desire can be a problem, but resisting the tempatations is what counts most. Thus, one can "be gay" and still believe. One can even believe while indulging one's desires, but that's another thing altogether.

The only Scriptural offering that can actually apply here is both the Galatian and Matthew tracts. The mugger did in fact reap what he sowed. There's no disputing that. As to Matthew, one must be left to their own to decide when and how to live that tract. I won't judge one who is "under the gun", so to speak. And only God and the old dude knows what was in the old dude's heart when he killed the mugger. He may have done so purposely. He may have done so to protect other old folks. He may have done it to give his own self a charge. The intent defines whether or not it was murder. God will judge that. The jurisdiction already judged him to have acted in self-defense.

As for me, I find it sad that the mugger was killed and has no chance for redemption. I find it sad that he felt it necessary to be a mugger rather than to find some better way. But my sympathy goes only so far for such as him.

mom2 said...

Also interesting to note that the absolute sanctity of human life doesn't apply in this case. Killing an embryo is murder, but killing a fully sentient human adult is "Good news," "Got what he deserved," worthy of "Hooray!" We are even treated to a bible verse by way of justification.

mudkitty, what or how do you interpret this statement above by liam if it is not comparing an unborn baby to the mugger?

Lone Ranger said...

This "fully sentient human adult" was well on his way to becoming a vicious criminal, and in all likelyhood, a killer. At the time of his death, his sentience was employed in robbing at gunpoint, a group of elderly people. What is the sin of the unborn baby? At the most, it is inconvenient. Why can't liberals figure out the difference?

mmudkitty said...

Mom, I think it's an insult to any sentient human to be compared to an embryo or fetus. I think it trivializes murder.

For example, I'm sure you wouldn't equate a miscarriage to the death of one of your born children as equal tragedies.

mudkitty said...

But to get back on topic: By definition, a mugger is only interested in your money, not in killing you.

I would rather give a mugger the money I have on me, than kill a human being.

Abouna said...

To Mudkitty,
Then after you give him all the money you have on you and he kills you?

Jason H. Bowden said...

If I had self-defense training and someone threatened my life, you bet I would use lethal force against the offender.

The Costa Rican example shows two things.

1) Liberal criminals need to be careful who they prey upon.

2) Biblical exegesis, and words in general have no impact on events like this. One can preach about the ought, but the ought is inextricably connected to the is. A society that lets criminals run amok is less likely to flourish than those that do not.

Liberals, who don't believe in objective reality, think words can change reality like voodoo, which is why they think stupidities like democratic socialism and talking to terrorists can excel. They remind me of the apes in the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, squawking to get their way. They stood no chance against the more evolved apes, who could see things instrumentally, use tools, recognize ends and match means to them. Rationality by its nature never submits to irrationality; it is the natural right of man to defend himself against lawless elements.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Liam wrote:Killing an embryo is murder, but killing a fully sentient human adult is "Good news,"

Liam, that statement just astounds me, because I see you as a very intelligent, thoughtful person. Is there not a moral equivalent difference between an unborn human being- an innocent- and a career criminal with a long record of victimizing society?

mudkitty wrote:
I think it's an insult to any sentient human to be compared to an embryo or fetus. I think it trivializes murder.

And I find that statement to be trivializing the life of the embryo. I suppose you consider it nothing more than a sack of so much plasma and cells?

I'm not even a hardliner on the abortion issue...but really! I have no sympathy for the mugger. He reaped what he sowed.


former embryo

Marshall Art said...

Frankly, Mudkitty,

I believe most women do indeed equate a miscarriage to the death of their born children. I know the women I've known who went through that experience felt they lost a child when they miscarried, not a clump of tissue.

mudkitty said...

Abouna, then, by definition, it wouldn't be a mugging. And the he wouldn't be a mugger. By definition.

mudkitty said...

Believe me, most women do not equate a mischarriage with the death of a born child. That is cheap sentiment.

That's not to say that miscarriages aren't sad, even though fertilized eggs get discarded everyday via ordinary menstruation, but to compare a miscarriage to the death of a born child of any age or hour, well, to mind mind, that is scary crazy.

Marshall Art said...

You confuse those embryos that get flushed naturally before the mother knows she's pregnant, with those that are miscarried after the mother knows. You might not give a flying rat's ass, but I doubt you can speak for any women other than those who are as misguided about what constitutes a human as you are.

mudkitty said...

It seems to me that Marshall is the one who doesn't give a flying rat's ass about the "embryos who get flushed naturally."

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

I guess I need to repeat myself since the typical liberal tactic of avoiding valid point seems to apply.

"'Death to America'

Is that a gun pointed at our heads, Mudkitten?"

Marshall Art said...


Did you sleep through Biology 101? To make a simple comparison, and I hope it's simple enough to be easily understood, when "fertilized eggs get discarded everyday via ordinary menstruation", it is a natural process than is akin to a natural death. The reasons for this phenomenon are generally due to problems with the embryo that the body naturally sees as too troublesome to carry to term, or not likely to survive. But it's a natural process and not support for the notion that it is not a human being. At all stages of life, people die of causes not known until the autopsy uncovers it. The fertilized eggs that get discarded every day via ordinary menstruation are amongst this group.

mom2 said...

mudkitty certainly does not speak for me! I am wondering if she is a mother. How any mother can have such a light view of life in the womb is beyond me. I remember the love I began feeling for my children during pregnancy and in one case when I thought that I might not be going to have a live baby, I was so depressed and then was so thankfully surprised when I delivered a live baby boy.

mudkitty said...

Yet, Marie, you won't answer my question. Which would be a greater tragedy? If you had a miscarriage, knowingly or unknowingly, or the death of one of your children?

mudkitty said...

And yet Marshall, you don't shed a tear over those little fertilized eggs...

Gayle said...

I was trying to give up arguing with Mudkitty for Lent, but I absolutely cannot let this one go!

She said: "Believe me, most women do not equate a mischarriage with the death of a born child. That is cheap sentiment." How dare you, Mudkitty. The only thing I can think of right now that is truly "cheap" is your sentiments!

I have had two miscarriages during my life time, one at three months and one at nearly six months. This was a long time ago and neither baby could be saved. I mourned for a long, long time over each one! They were named and given burials the same as any living child would, and they were loved while inside me just as much as if they had been born. They were living human beings who just hadn't been able to survive on their own yet. They were both named before they were miscarried. And since I have raised three children and a granddaughter, I know what I'm talking about! When children are wanted, the loss of a child still in the womb is totally devastating; every bit as devastating as losing one outside of the womb.

Mudkitty, don't pretend to know what you are talking about regarding this subject. You know absolutely nothing and how dare you try to speak for "most women"?! You are bound and determined to justify abortion. It makes me wonder how many abortions you have had during your lifetime? Have you used it as a form of birth control? After your sorry statements here on Mark's post I wouldn't doubt it.

Feel free to speak for yourself, but keep your trashy mouth shut when it comes to "most women." You don't have that sort of authority! Perhaps you speak for the women you associate with. That would be one reason for your making such an outrageous statement, but you definitely do not speak for me or "most women"! Your comment here is one of the most hateful and hurtful and thoughtless comments I've ever seen anywhere. As that seems to be your intent, congratulations!

mudkitty said...

I am horrified that someone would equate their mis-carriages with the death of one of their children. I hope that person never has to find out the difference.

mudkitty said...

I know a lot of women who have had mis-carriages, myself included.

Abouna said...

All life in the womb is sacred and when a mother miscarries or the child is born dead, it is a loss, and the mother grieves for that child as well she should.

But it is even more horrendous when a mother will deliberately choose to end the life of the unborn. To call this a Right to Choose is a complete falsehood. Where is the unborn child's right to choose? How will you answer to G-d?

tugboatcapn said...

Mudkitty, my Wife had a miscarriage late last year, and I can assure youmthat she felt the pain of that loss very, very deeply.

She still grieves for what, or who might have been.

I don't care whether or not the pain she feels is as intense as her pain over a lost child outside of her womb would have been, nor do I wish for her to ever find that out.

Her pain is VERY real.

And you do not speak for her.

I would thank you to stop presuming to do so.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

spitfire said...

You poor child. Apparantly you've never lost a child. I've miscarried, and delivered a still born child. I also have 2 sons in the military as we speak. I don't care which one you want to talk about, the pain over the loss of a child is so intense as to defy description. I still celebrate the date my first child (still born at 7 months) would have been born, the date my second child (a miscarriage who was delivered at 4 months and was a girl)was born and wonder daily as I watch my 6 year old which of his siblings he'd be like now. And I can assure you, both the dead children were fully formed humans, beautiful in every way missing only the breath of life. Peter and Elizabeth were perfect in form and deeply loved in their short lives as well as their deaths.
It would appear you have a different perspective. You have the right to that. My two older sons fight everyday for you to have the right to say any stupid, hurtful and unkind thing you want to say.
But you DON'T have the right to say you speak for anyone BUT yourself. MOST women don't differentiate between their children. A child is a child is a child. No matter if your's by birth, adoption, affection or chance. It's still a child, and if you count it as your child you love it no matter what. We have 5 living boys...2 foster boys, 1 by family death, 1 by choice and 1 by adoption. We love them equally. We also have 2 boys and 3 girls lost to us by either death or circumstances. They are ALL our kids. Equally loved and prayed for.
So before you make blanket statements that are ridiculous, please stop and think who you are really speaking can't speak for others if you haven't walked in their shoes.

Marshall Art said...

"I am horrified that someone would equate their mis-carriages with the death of one of their children."

But it IS their child. That's the point. I don't condemn anyone who grieves less because they miscarried in the first week. Millions of people die every day for whom I don't shed a single tear. Why would I grieve for a miscarried embryo with the same level of emotion as I would my eleven year old daughter? I never got to know the child as I have my eleven year old. And if the wife lost it in the first week, chances are neither of us would know. So what? It doesn't make the child less human because of how many cells constitutes it's physique. It's human and a person due to it's having been the product of the activity of it's parents which is designed to bring about new human life. In a miscarriage, it's a natural death. For many women, once they know they're pregnant, the stage of development is of little concern. It's their baby nonetheless. That's as it should be.

mu said...

You guys do not know my reproductive history, which is private, but needless to say, I'm a woman, and I KNOW that if I lost a twenty year old son in Iraq, I would consider it a much greater tragedy than any mis-carriages I've had. Much greater, by leaps and bounds.

In fact, I would consider it a much greater tragedy if any of YOU lost a a child in the Iraq war, or in any other manner, than any mis-carriage.

I had friends - an entire family - who were murdered in '06. I KNOW that that is a greater tragedy than any mis-carriage I may have had.

mudkitty said...

That was supposed to read "mudkitty."

mom2 said...

This comparison business is strictly a liberal thing in my opinion.
God is the author of life and that falls under His authority. Abortion being made legal gave people the idea that we are smarter than He is and it has continued to go downhill ever since.

mudkitty said...

But in this country, we have religious freedom, M2 - I'm not obligated to believe in, or follow your religion. And you have no right to impose your religion on others.

However, I once did believe in your religion, and I am a student of the bible, and the bible has no restrictions on abortion. In fact, at the time the bible was written, abortion was legal. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, abortion was legal.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

That was supposed to read "mudkitty."

I think you should go with "mu".

One translation: "Mu" = "nothing"


mom2 said...

I once did believe in your religion,>

Religion doesn't mean much. It is the personal relationship with Jesus Christ that makes a difference in lives.

Gayle said...

Mudkitty said "I am horrified that someone would equate their mis-carriages with the death of one of their children. I hope that person never has to find out the difference."

Those babies who didn't make it were my children, numbskull. There is no difference!

It seems you have the same mindset as the head nurse who placed me in a room with three other mothers who had delivered living, breathing, babies. I didn't have mine, but I had to watch them breast feed their babies, while my arms ached for mine. Finally, after an entire day of this sadistic torture the doctor came in, looked horrified and gave orders to have me moved. The head nurse was fired. I have to wonder if you are her.

Marshall Art said...


As I implied by my last, to mourn for someone one doesn't know is uncommon. Thus, to mourn equally for a miscarried embryo as one would a grown child would also be uncommon. However, that also does not negate the value of the human life that is lost. One is unlikely to mourn for the death of some unknown person on the other side of the planet, yet that person is still human and as a result has value. How you value one person over another is your business, but society must value all human life equally.

You can't be a student of the Bible and believe that it might have no inherent restricions on abortion. The Bible you study, is it in comic book form? That might explain the misperception. David speaks of God knowing him in his mother's womb. Jesus often speaks of choosing life. I suppose poor students of the Bible can believe anything. Poor study habits might be another explanation for your position.

I can't explain just how eager I am to hear you support your contention that abortion was legal at the time the Bible and Constitution was written. I've got popcorn and a comfy chair and am welling with expectation. Can your explanation possibly be more than "there were no laws against it"? Consider me ready to be entertained.

Macroglossius lunarius said...

Poor MudKitty.

She's run the whole gamut of reproductive failures.

First, it's two ectopic pregnancies (which she claims are abortions). Then it's one ectopic pregnancy and one abortion. Now, it's a miscarriage and who knows what.

Do us all a favor and keep your lies straight, IdiotKitty!

Oh, I almost forgot:

I am not one of Mel Gibson's puppets!! As a abused herbivore, by the WAY, I am achordate!! When the Nazis say "liberty," they really mean "meat"? When THEY say "character," it is just a code word for "imperialism"! Mandate, indeed!!

mudkitty said...

Yes, I have had one mis-charriage, an abortion, and two ectopic pregnancies. Some people who call themselves Christians might even be sympathetic, or even empathetic. But that might be too much too hope for, here.

But what isn't too much to hope for is that some rightwing ahole will take it upon himself to expose another person's private medical info, and reproductive history.

I thought you guys were against that when they tried going after Rush's medical info? But then consistency isn't a strong suit when it comes to personal attacks from some people (but certainly not all people) who call themselves Christians, or Republicans for that matter.

As yourselves...why would someone who stalks me on websites post that kind of private info? Ask yourselves.

Don't say it's because I'm a hypocrite, because if you haven't figured out by now that I'm pro-choice then you're kidding yourselves.

But do ask yourselves why someone would do that?

Are they trying to paint a target on my back for some crazy out there?

mudkitty said...

Talk about pearls before swine...

mudkitty said...

But back to the topic, get a dictionary folks. A mugging is not a murder.

mom2 said...

mudkitty, I think you are on the wrong site. I don't think we care much about how or what you think. You could get your empathy at another site, I'm sure. That's just my opinion.

Gayle said...

Where are you Mark? I believe the subject of your post got away from us, and I apologize for biting on Mudkitty's bait. Trolls always attempt to change the subject of a post and she was far too successful on this one.

A mugging is not a murder, but we don't know whether this mugger would have murdered or not, because thankfully he was killed by an elderly man defending himself. Kudos to that man for choosing life; his own!

Marie's Two Cents said...

Oh heck yeah!

Marie's Two Cents said...

Haha oh man I am reading some of these comment's and I cant believe Mudkitty is still hanging on LMAO!

Ectopic Pregnancies?

Oh man I am going to have to read all this stuff now, this is entertainment.

Pat's Mudkitty on her Gills :-)

Marie's Two Cents said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mariestwocents said...


Yet, Marie, you won't answer my question. Which would be a greater tragedy? If you had a miscarriage, knowingly or unknowingly, or the death of one of your children?

Mudkitty as far as I can tell I havent posted here in days, however I could be wrong and will keep reading.

mariestwocents said...

Wow! Well Ectopic pregnancies, Rush's Medical records, murder, abortion, alot of topic's have been covered here.

But the Mugger was the Topic I believe.

If I were being mugged, my first thought would probably be, he's going to kill me anyway so I'm not going down without a fight. If he wound up dieing in the fight I wont mourn his loss because he should'nt have been trying to rob me in the first place.

Mark said...

Kevron has been warned before not to comment on my blog. He knows why. He is a rude, sarcastic, infantile, God hating, egotistic little troll.

Anyone interested in Kevron's Stats?

Here they are:

Domain Name ? (Network)
IP Address 71.146.98.# (SBC Internet Services)
ISP SBC Internet Services
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : California
City : Alameda
Lat/Long : 37.7534, -122.2604 (Map)

Language English (United States)
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1280 x 800
Color Depth : 32 bits

Good luck on your conquest across the blogosphere Kev!

Kevron's Actual IP# Is:

Have Fun with this Lunatic!!

Sorry friends, but comment moderation, has out of necessicity, been re-enabled. If you don't like it, Blame Kevron.

Mark said...

Sorry again, friends. My internet connection to the internet was interrupted for 3 days and I haven't been able to get online. I just now got it fixed.

That jerk, Kevron returned to add his innane off topic sarcastic non-funny, little digs while I was gone, so I have deleted his comments as I promised him I always would, and now, have had to re-enable comment moderation because he apparently doesn't understand he isn't welcome here.

If anyone else wants to be a jerk, they will be deleted, too.

mariestwocents said...

Kick's KEvron where it hurt's!

Mary said...

...interesting to note that the absolute sanctity of human life doesn't apply in this case. Killing an embryo is murder, but killing a fully sentient human adult is "Good news," "Got what he deserved," worthy of "Hooray!"

Why is it that culture of death proponents don't understand that an unborn child is powerless and innocent?

Is killing an unborn child an act of self-defense?

What a warped view of things!

Abouna said...

Mudkitty, How wrong you are. When the Bible was written, abortion was NOT legal. The Bible (OLD TESTAMENT) made it a point that life was in the blood and that he who shed anothers blood was to die in like manner. The Old Testament also says, 'Thou shalt not murder'.

When our Constitution was written, abortion was NOT legal. that is why abortions were always performed in dark alleys or in secret.

mudkitty said...

Abortion was completely legal, by statute, when the bible was written. A woman was the property of her father, or her brother, or her husband, and any progeny was subject, and parcel, to the particular man's property.

Why do you think women didn't even get the vote in THIS COUNTRY untill 1919, when my own grandmother was 11!

Because of the bible.


Further more: Abortion was legal at the time of the founding of our Nation.

But don't take my word for it. Look it up.

mudkitty said...

Marie, muggers, by definition, aren't murderers.

That's why murderers are called murderers, and muggers are called muggers.

That's why good judgment is called for in bad situations.

People, we really need to get a grip, here.

Marshall Art said...

"Abortion was completely legal, by statute, when the bible was written."

Absolutely preposterous. Prove it. Don't give me any crap about looking it up myself. You made the stupid statement, now back it up. There is no way that you could right interpret anything in the Bible as saying that abortion was practiced or approved of by a nation that prohibited murder. There's no way you could support the idea that the nation of Israel would look upon a fetus as anything other than a child. They might not know what an embryo was if it fell out onto the floor, but they knew when a woman was pregnant and they knew it was a growing child inside a pregnant woman.

And then to say the Bible was the basis of women not being able to vote? Which tract of Scripture supports that? Remember, it would have to be NT tracts.

Abortion legal at the Nation's founding? No freakin' way.

A mugger is a mugger until the moment he murders his target. Hard to know what kind of mugger one is facing before the gun goes off. Please pardon anyone who doesn't care to wait that long. There have been too many tales of people getting murdered after giving the perp what he wanted.

Marshall Art said...

OK. I couldn't wait so I looked it up. Abortion was NOT illegal in 1776, but was so socially unacceptable that by the mid 1800's most states had laws prohibiting or restricting it. Influenced by British law, the practice was allowed before the first movements of the child were felt by the mother, a point at which some believed life and soul entered the child, known as the "quickening". Of course modern science understands that the child has life and is living from fertilization. But the ignorance of such things back then did not color everyone's position on the issue and my research reveals that opposition to the practice goes back as far as Hyppocrates, the "Father of Medicine".

So it appears that my initial instinct was correct and that it wasn't so much that it was legal, but that there were no laws making it illegal. It wasn't technically legal until Harry Blackmun conjured up the right out of thin air after Roe v Wade.

And just to clarify, a mugger who murders is still a mugger, but not all murderers are muggers. So when a mugger pops a cap in your ass after taking your purse, he's still a mugger, but he's a murderer as well.

To further clarify, I favor the supposition that one may use whatever force necessary to end the threat, but one must err in favor of the mugging victim and the victim's perception of the threat level.

Anonymous said...

That means, in plain words, that abortion was legal at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Go back further...look it up, biblical times...

Marshall Art said...

"That means, in plain words, that abortion was legal at the time of the writing of the Constitution."

I believe I pretty much conceded that. I least I thought I had. But there is a distinction between what it "not illegal" and what is sanctioned by the state or codified.

"Go back further...look it up, biblical times..."

No sir. Provide a link. Keep in mind, that if you're not giving ancient Jewish or Christian law, it doesn't count. There were many traditions in Biblical times, not all of them worth a damn as support for the practice.

BTW, what would we learn about what was allowed in dealing with muggers if we were to revisit the founding of the country or Biblical times? You'd probably find more dead muggers. Should we use those beliefs now?

mudkitty said...

Provide me with a link to prove that abortion was illegal in biblical times (it wasn't, but there were regulations, because when another man harmed a fetus, it was considered a crime against the property of the father, brother or husband.)

Don't take my word for it. Look it up. There are many sites on the web that either publish the bible, or publish the bible according to subject. Go look it up. Find me one admonition in the bible that said abortion is murder. Just one.

mudkitty said...

sorry - anon is me - mk

Marshall Art said...

NO!!! You made the silly claim. Support it with a link. I looked up the first part and responded accordingly. I found that your idea of legal was as I supposed, but conceded the point anyway. I want to see what you've got for the second. Don't fret. I'll read it, and then I'll correct your assumption. Are you a scare-die mudkitty?

mudkitty said...

I'm asking you to name one single anti-abortion phrase in all of bibledom.

Marshall Art said...

There are several that are used by anti-abortion Christians all the time. They revolve around God knowing the speaker either in the womb, or before conception, suggesting a value of the person. But here's two of my favorites:

"Thou shalt not murder", from the Ten Commandments, and "Choose life" which Jesus mentioned Himself.

In trying to find something that tries to support your position, I did come upon an atheist's defense of abortion and his feeble attempts to debunk the Scriptural support used by the anti-abortion Christians. Fascinating stuff nonetheless. He goes a long way to rationalize the practice. Must be tiring to be so convoluted. In any case, it dawned on me that I should be reading arguments from links supplied by you, since you made the daffy claim. I take it you have none.