Meanwhile, In Arklow

at

13626539_655477441266670_7840173435549269067_n

Mick tweetz:

One of me best mates [Dara Kenny] painted this down in Arklow. Legal wall, no permission needed. #repealthe8th

Previously: Meanwhile, In Temple Bar

Ate Amendment

Dara Kenny

63 thoughts on “Meanwhile, In Arklow

    1. Sheila

      Ah you and your street art jibber jabber.

      This is great, in my non-street-art humble opinion :)

  1. newsjustin

    It’s nicely done.

    But it should clarify – Bodily Autonomy for All*

    *except human foetuses, they can be destroyed.

    1. The Real Jane

      I’m interested to hear more about this foetal autonomy and how it would work, Justin. How does something non sentient exercise autonomy?

        1. The Real Jane

          *What’s your test for sentience?*

          I find the dictionary definition, “Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience)” is adequate. Perhaps you have a personal definition that you feel is better?

      1. newsjustin

        The most fundamental expression of autonomy is to simply exist, to remain alive, even against the wishes of others who may want you to be not alive.

        The right of humans to stay alive is a fundamental and important one. It is even more important than the right of a human to not be pregnant, in the particular case where the unborn human is alive within the body of the other human who doesn’t want it alive. These are two very serious rights and expressions of bodily autonomy, but given that ceasing to exist is the price one must pay to allow the other to prevail, the right to life trumps the right not to be pregnant.

        Obviously, as is the case in our laws, if being pregnant will lead to the death of the mother, it is then reasonable to abort a pregnancy.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          And why are you ok with killing the unborn human over the mother in that case? Aren’t they both of equal importance?

          1. newsjustin

            Because a foetus that cannot survive outside it’s mother’s womb will die if it’s mother dies. If it can survive, it should be born (as pro choice people regularly point out).

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Because a foetus that cannot survive outside it’s mother’s womb will die if it’s mother dies.”

            So the pro life movement are ok with killing humans thay can’t survive without nourishment from the bodies of other humans?

          3. newsjustin

            Love them both Jane, yes. Mothers and unborn humans are worth our time, support and love. Men too. In fact, all humans are important and valuable. You too Jane.

          4. newsjustin

            No Moyest. That’s not what I said.

            I said it was OK, and permissable in our laws, to abort a foetus if it’s pregnancy posed a direct and seious threat to the life of the mother.

            You took my clarification as a stand alone comment rather than just that, a clarification on my previous comment about the risk to the life of the mother.

          5. newsjustin

            Do you think I deliberately left out women because I hate women because I’m pro life Jane?

          6. MoyestWithExcitement

            But that is what you said. You oppose abortion on the principle of equality for ‘unborn humans’ but you’re happy to waive that right if it threatens the right of a “born” human, so, you *do* see a difference between a foetus and a human being. Your slogans are lies. Your arguments consist of dogma and elevating yourself above those things with whom you disagree because you have little in the way of facts or reason to play with

          7. The Real Jane

            Not necessarily. I think you didn’t realise what you were doing when you were listing out your lovable beings and it simply didn’t occur to you that in embracing the worth of all humanity, women who aren’t mothers were not included. It’s funny, because women who aren’t mothers or don’t want to be mothers are very relevant when we’re talking about abortion rights. Men, less so. Yet you included men.

            It’s really just an observation on your unconscious bias.

          8. newsjustin

            Moyest. When it is a fact (or as near as can be established by medics) that a mother will die because of a pregnancy there is no option but to end that pregnancy and save her life. I don’t see how you would think anyone would have a problem with that. Both will die if the pregnancy is continued.

            You’re like a wind up toy. We were having a reasonably calm discussion and suddenly you’re off on a rant. Cool down.

          9. newsjustin

            Thanks Jane. I note you had nothing to say on my response to your query re bodily autonomy. Interesting…….. (as you would say)

            Perhaps, unconciously, you agree with me.

            Interesting.

          10. MoyestWithExcitement

            “When it is a fact (or as near as can be established by medics) that a mother will die because of a pregnancy there is no option but to end that pregnancy and save her life.”

            But that will kill the unborn human you said has equal value to the woman. So the unborn human is *not* equal to the woman? You need to be more clear.

            “I don’t see how you would think anyone would have a problem with that.”

            Obviously I don’t. I’m just pointing out how your “principles” aren’t consistent and thus cannot be used to argue against the pro choice position. You clearly don’t believe your own “principles” is what I’m saying.

            “You’re like a wind up toy. We were having a reasonably calm discussion and suddenly you’re off on a rant. Cool down.”

            Rant? You’re just having a little panic attack because you haven’t yet come up with a response to the highlighting of the fraudulence of your argument so you need to mischaracterise it. Calm down and go again. Relax. They’re just words.

          11. newsjustin

            Sorry. I obviously do need to be clearer. Here goes.

            When continuing with a pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, the least worst option is to abort the pregnancy and save the mother. This is because it is better to save one life (the mother’s) than lose both lives. Saving a life is better than losing two.

          12. MoyestWithExcitement

            That’s fine. You don’t see the foetus as equal to the human being despite arguing otherwise for so long. If you have to choose, you will choose the mother. Just wanted to highlight that to you.

          13. newsjustin

            No. That’s not my position.

            Both lives are equal. If a foetus will did if it’s mother dies and it’s mother is dying because of the continued pregnancy, it is reasonable to abort the foetus to save the life of the mother.

            If the pregnancy wasn’t aborted, both would die. It is, as I explained, the best worst option. It’s what our law currently allows for.

          14. Clampers Outside!

            “Not women, I notice, mothers. Interesting” and then “unconscious bias” for not having said ‘woman’, but was qualified with ‘humans’.

            I’m not in agreement with Newsjustin, but the above is pathetic nit picking…. facepalm inducing.

          15. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Both lives are equal.”

            That’s just an empty slogan. You have just said you’d choose the mother over the foetus if you had to.

            “If the pregnancy wasn’t aborted, both would die.”

            ? Ok. What about cases where the baby has a good chance of survival but the mother’s death is certain?

          16. newsjustin

            It’s not a choice Moyest – if both lives cannot be saved, then we must do our best to save one. We agree on that, surely?

            In the last case you outlined then everything should be done to save each life. You might expand on what you mean though, be interesting to hear about the circumstances you had in mind.

        2. The Real Jane

          Oh yeah, where you ignored sentience? Well it was a bit pointless replying really, since it wasn’t about what I asked.

        3. pedeyw

          Different question here newjustin, do you feel that women who aquire abortions should be punished?

      2. Tony

        Yeah like them in comas or the profoundly mentally handicapped. What gives them the right to bodily autonomy? Just non sentient clumps of meat

        1. pedeyw

          Wow. Do you actually think that the porfoundly mentally handicapped are “non sentient clumps of meat”?

      1. pedeyw

        For the record, Nigel, I agree with you, mostly, but the line of argument doesn’t really get us anywhere.

      1. Frunobulax

        To walk freely through the un-dawned night into the un-dusked day with an unloaded mind.

  2. Zuppy International

    Abortion is murder.

    Admit that and we can talk about the best, most efficient and least traumatic way to kill unborn babies.

    1. ReproBertie

      Human life is nothing special.

      Admit that and we can get over most of the objections to giving people control of their own bodies.

      1. Zuppy International

        Human life is sacred. If you don’t agree then why not kill yourself right now?

        1. The Real Jane

          Can you just explain how that works as a cause and effect? It’s possible to believe, for example, that a foetus is not a human life without it necessarily following that you should want to kill yourself. Even if you believe that human life isn’t any more sacred than any other type of life, why would that make you kill yourself? Do you think that the only thing that stops mass suicide is the idea that human life is sacred or do you accept that some people quite like their lives even if they don’t think there’s any existential dimension to it?

        2. ReproBertie

          Human life is clearly not sacred. If it was then there would be no war, no deaths due to poverty, malaria or dirty water and there would certainly be no delay in helping refugees. If you actually believe that it is then why are you not helping prevent war and provide clean drinking water?

          There’s no aftelife and I have things to do so I’ll be sticking around for as long as possible.

          1. Zuppy International

            I forgot that RepoBertie is dead already (no soul). But what he and the other demented abortion huggers fail to realise is that I’m offering a compromise: Admit that abortion is murder and I’ll drop my opposition to the repeal of the 8th amendment.

            FYI the text of same is as follows:

            The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

          2. ReproBertie

            A quick reminder Zuppy:
            Moon Landings – real
            Soul – imaginary

            I’m not an abortion hugger but I am totally against the idea of people ruling others based on fairy stories. Human life being sacred is as much a fairy story as any religious nonsense.

          3. Zuppy International

            We’re not talking about moon landings (fake or imaginary) we’re talking about the murder of the unborn.

            Stay on topic will you.

          4. ReproBertie

            You referenced stuff posted on other topics. I responded to it. If you want me to stay on topic then lead by example.

            If abortion is murder is a miscarriage manslaughter?

          5. ReproBertie

            You want a debate on your terms and your terms are that I accept a point I completely disagree with but I’m the one trying to distract? You don’t start a debate by insisting that the opposing side accept your view as a starting point. That’s an utterly ridiculous expectation.

            #admithumanlifeisnotspecial

          6. Zuppy International

            You’ve just disappeared up your own fundament there RepoBertie.

            Goodbye.

    1. Father Filth

      Why can’t we educate people to make up their minds before pregnancy..?

      What excuse is there, religion or not?

      There’s YouTube footage of abortions and the babies survive on their own for an hour or so afterwards, fecked off to the side like dinner scraps in a metal kidney bowl.

      You don’t have to be ‘religious’ to want to break windows after watching footage like that..

  3. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    Yeah but you DO have to be ‘religious’ to post stuff like that on YouTube…or to go searching for it on YouTube…or to subsequently publicise it on Broadsheet, don’t you agree?

  4. Brendan O'

    Jet Set Radio Future, Wiki says: it depicts a future Tokyo where freedom of expression is outlawed. The user plays a character in the GG’s, a gang of in-line skating graffiti artists who skate around Tokyo covering up rival gangs’ graffiti. Most of the game requires the player to search for graffiti tags left by other gangs and spray over them with their own. To do this, players will need to collect spray cans littered across each stage.

Comments are closed.