7 ms·

It's all so much more simple than that. It boils down to a social contract. The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affec

It's all so much more simple than that. It boils down to a social contract. The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals). There is no nuance at all. You are free, of course, to not "sign" that contract - but that means that those who have are not obligated to apply it to you.

cko 2y ago
I'm pro choice, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? So for some people it's not that simple.
- max__dev 2y ago
  I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn? Either of them isn’t a real person, neither is fully conscious. Sure a newborn can feel pain but infanticide can be done in a humane way. What we are depriving from the newborn is the opportunity to live and experience the rest of its life but the same applies in both cases. And in a quite a few ancient societies infanticide was fully acceptable (killing slightly older children was generally not) and used as a somewhat safer alternative to abortion.
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      > Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn? From a practical perspective, giving up the newborn for adoption is significantly easier than the 4 month embryo - it's already been carried to term and birthed. And quite a few humans, correctly or otherwise, feel a lot more 'ick' around the idea of infanticide vs. abortion. But they also feel a lot more 'ick' around late gestation abortion too - most states have had gestational limits around abortion. Very few have had none. (Many of those with gestational limits do have exceptions around health/safety issues for the mother, or significant medical issues with the fetus, etc.) It's kind of a strange argument because most of the US did accept the premise that at a certain point in the embryo's development abortion becomes less acceptable. I can't speak as definitively for the rest of the world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite similar - most countries that allow for abortion have gestational restrictions.
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        > world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite simila IIRC US is quite permissive in that regard? 12-14 is generally standard across much of Europe while in US that’s generally viewed as quite restrictive?
  - h3half 2y ago
    Why so snarky? It's pretty clear cko understands that and is trying to convey your exact point to the person they responded to (who made the opposite assumption)
- therealpygon 2y ago
  Yet they often have no problem with destroying life that doesn’t share a common DNA sequence? An interesting morality basis.
  - h3half 2y ago
    I must be misunderstanding because that seems like the most common morality basis in the world. People who equate running over a squirrel in the road to vehicular manslaughter (as if you had hit a human child) are seen as extremists, and someone who was OK with hunting deer as well as humans would be seen as having some sort of mental condition. The majority view is that species matters
    - therealpygon 2y ago
      I’m all aboard for that when it is something that exists in our world as the same species rather than a collection of DNA. It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after, all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied. Further, the claimed examples of “protection” were only examples of things resolved by punishment, not protection, which is telling about what goal is truly fundamental.
      - hellojesus 2y ago
        > It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after I think the entire reason the parent is punished is because it is not okay for a child to die in a gutter... > all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied People don't experience spontaneous conception. The one collection of dna hitting the other is the result of a deliberate act of both dnas' owners [1]. In the scenario in which a fetus is regarded as a child, abortion is obviously equivalent to murder. It is death of a human against their volition by another. The interesting future to me, policy-wise, is what happens when we have the ability to extract fetuses from mothers and grow them to maturity artifically? Will society determine that abortions are a no-go at that time since literally all fetuses can be saved without impact to the mother in excess of an abortion operation, or will society state that mothers must be allowed to murder [2] their children? [1] Ignore rape, incest, etc. for argument's sake because we're discussing the freedom between men and women. [2] Remember this scenario equates abortion to murder. I am not espousing personal beliefs. My username was chosen when I was contemplating suicide, not due to religious leanings.
roenxi 2y ago
The anti-abortion "argument" (everyone on all sides are really just asserting things because there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about) is that abortion is murdering a child. If someone accepts that frame, would you attempt to argue that there is no social contract to protect the lives of children? That seems like a tough argument to carry.
- max__dev 2y ago
  I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments. What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...
- therealpygon 2y ago
  Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective engagement. Defunding education, defunding school food, defunding numerous programs that actually protect children in favor of cash in their pocket. Morality sold cheaply or abandoned for convenience, except when forcing their will on others, especially if it only affects someone else.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country. Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
    - therealpygon 2y ago
      It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.
GenerocUsername 2y ago
I for one reject your social contract and despise the self-righteousness of people who think a social contract overrides personal liberty. You want others to partake in your social contract, but you would probably be appalled if that contract demanded people not be overweight (affects others wherever healthcare is in limited supply), or maybe the contract demands people not be gay (lowers birth rates and therefore societies GDP… also increases disease transmission). Social contracts come and go with time and yours is as wrong tomorrow as my proposed one is today
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I have made a lengthy comment on the burden of obesity on our healthcare and people in general. I have a radial nerve injury (and no text-to-speech) so I cannot find it right now nor re-write it. I absolutely agree with you and your conclusions. I made my reply here, from a slightly different perspective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749123
- cthalupa 2y ago
  Personal liberty is fine, until it starts infringing on my own, which these include. You don't want to vaccinate? You being infringing on my ability to stay healthy while participating in society. Vaccines aren't fully effective, not everyone can be vaccinated, etc., so to eradicate disease we rely on the majority of people getting vaccinated. You not using my preferred pronouns or name is simply a rude thing to do. If we remove the bizarre political fixation on it, if I tell you my name is John and you call me Joanna just because you think I look more like a Joanna, you're an asshole. I'm not in favor of making being an asshole illegal, but I will call you one. I'm actually fully OK with there being consequences to being overweight! It does put a large burden on the healthcare system. Right now the healthcare system is largely privatized so, well, it's not like public health is the primary concern for it anyway, but if it were, sure I believe that there should be actions taken to reduce obesity. We have a lot of promising anorectic medications right now, primarily in the form of the GLP-1 and related medications, and I'd be in favor of overweight and obese people needing to also go on these if they want access to public healthcare for issues that are related to metabolic disorder, etc. But we're in a privatized system, so... You're starting to really stretch the argument thin with the gay bit, though. Disease transmissions here still requires the informed consent of both parties - I'm not going to get HIV from a gay person without having some form of consensual sex with them, outside of behaviors that are already criminal - rape, contaminating something I'm eating with their semen, etc. This isn't the same as refusing vaccination and then participating in society for diseases that are transmissible like covid or ebola or similar. For birth rate/GDP, we do not enforce actions on straight couples when it comes to childbirth (or STDs, which while transmission rate is generally lower for some STDs for heterosexual intercourse it's obviously not exclusively limited to homosexual intercourse) so these suppositions seem to be targeted based not on the general outcome but simply on the fact the person is gay. If we started mandating child birth for straight people for whatever reason, then we can start having this conversation - but even in a fairly dystopic world where we are requiring married couples have kids, we can still provide options for gay people. Require them 'sponsor' an additional child for a straight couple, require them adopt, require surrogacy and them raising a child, etc. But targeting them just because of their sexual orientation would be quite obviously bigoted.
monkeywork 2y ago
>abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals). Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default. Both the parents are impacted by the choice either physically, emotionally, financially, and responsibility. Situations where the two parents conflict on this choice are common and the power is incredibly asymmetrical and can/does lead to abuse.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  Can you describe which asymmetry you mean?
  - monkeywork 2y ago
    The female has asymmetrical power in this situation regarding the two parents. Example: - Most pro-choice supporters would support the female deciding that she was too young to become a mother and terminating a pregnancy not because of any medical reason, but because of the changes to her life it would cause (ie, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet"). This same option is not available to males. If the female has decided to keep the child, the male in most countries is now automatically bound to this decision and generally, at least financially, will have their life impacted even if they have the same reasoning (ie, "I'm not ready to be a father yet"). Alternatively, if the female has decided to terminate and the male desperately wants the child, there is no recourse. I say asymmetrical because the results/responsibility of the decision are forced to be shared, however, the power to make said decision lies only with a single party. I do not propose a solution here or make a judgement I'm simply pointing it out because the person I replied to made it sound like this decision is a simple and doesn't impact others.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  People who oppose abortion usually consider abortion to affect 3 people, which probably influences their opinion on that topic.
- zamalek 2y ago
  > Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default. That's exactly what I said?
johnisgood 2y ago
"Social contract" is a made up term used to legitimatize government intervention, i.e. statist by nature, and built upon violence. It is a myth used to justify state coercion and centralized authority. > A society is certainly conceivable in which there was no governmental intervention in family life or education and in which the sole function of law enforcement was the upholding of universal rights. I would also refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473. https://store.mises.org/Myth-of-the-Social-Contract-Refuting-Common-Arguments-for-Government-Authority-P11268.aspx https://store.mises.org/Myth-of-the-Social-Contract-Refuting... and https://cdn.mises.org/1_3_3_0.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/1_3_3_0.pdf and whatnot.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  common decency? mutual respect? live and let live? the government has a role in doing the most good for the most people. for example, keeping companies from dumping poison into rivers.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    I am in favor of "common decency, mutual respect, live and let live". That is not what "social contract" is about (unless you keep playing the redefinition of words game, which many people do when arguing in favor of "muh social contract"), and no, we do not need the Government for that. https://www.academia.edu/7185307/Libertarianism_and_Pollution https://www.academia.edu/7185307/Libertarianism_and_Pollutio... https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-government-pollution-control-fails https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-government-pollution-contro... https://mises.org/mises-daily/libertarian-manifesto-pollution https://mises.org/mises-daily/libertarian-manifesto-pollutio... Among others... Please do ask if you want to read more about it. I personally like to read a lot of things with what I disagree. Please reply to the other person's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473), too, I wonder what you'd come up with. :)
    - nielsbot 2y ago
      > despise the self-righteousness of people who think a social contract overrides personal liberty my reply to this bit is: Take your personal liberty to Libertarian Island.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
The social contract is "hack all the social contracts" and take decency hostage to trojan horse all the things

cko 2y ago

I'm pro choice, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? So for some people it's not that simple.

max__dev 2y ago
I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn? Either of them isn’t a real person, neither is fully conscious. Sure a newborn can feel pain but infanticide can be done in a humane way. What we are depriving from the newborn is the opportunity to live and experience the rest of its life but the same applies in both cases. And in a quite a few ancient societies infanticide was fully acceptable (killing slightly older children was generally not) and used as a somewhat safer alternative to abortion.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    > Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn? From a practical perspective, giving up the newborn for adoption is significantly easier than the 4 month embryo - it's already been carried to term and birthed. And quite a few humans, correctly or otherwise, feel a lot more 'ick' around the idea of infanticide vs. abortion. But they also feel a lot more 'ick' around late gestation abortion too - most states have had gestational limits around abortion. Very few have had none. (Many of those with gestational limits do have exceptions around health/safety issues for the mother, or significant medical issues with the fetus, etc.) It's kind of a strange argument because most of the US did accept the premise that at a certain point in the embryo's development abortion becomes less acceptable. I can't speak as definitively for the rest of the world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite similar - most countries that allow for abortion have gestational restrictions.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      > world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite simila IIRC US is quite permissive in that regard? 12-14 is generally standard across much of Europe while in US that’s generally viewed as quite restrictive?
- h3half 2y ago
  Why so snarky? It's pretty clear cko understands that and is trying to convey your exact point to the person they responded to (who made the opposite assumption)
therealpygon 2y ago
Yet they often have no problem with destroying life that doesn’t share a common DNA sequence? An interesting morality basis.
- h3half 2y ago
  I must be misunderstanding because that seems like the most common morality basis in the world. People who equate running over a squirrel in the road to vehicular manslaughter (as if you had hit a human child) are seen as extremists, and someone who was OK with hunting deer as well as humans would be seen as having some sort of mental condition. The majority view is that species matters
  - therealpygon 2y ago
    I’m all aboard for that when it is something that exists in our world as the same species rather than a collection of DNA. It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after, all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied. Further, the claimed examples of “protection” were only examples of things resolved by punishment, not protection, which is telling about what goal is truly fundamental.
    - hellojesus 2y ago
      > It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after I think the entire reason the parent is punished is because it is not okay for a child to die in a gutter... > all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied People don't experience spontaneous conception. The one collection of dna hitting the other is the result of a deliberate act of both dnas' owners [1]. In the scenario in which a fetus is regarded as a child, abortion is obviously equivalent to murder. It is death of a human against their volition by another. The interesting future to me, policy-wise, is what happens when we have the ability to extract fetuses from mothers and grow them to maturity artifically? Will society determine that abortions are a no-go at that time since literally all fetuses can be saved without impact to the mother in excess of an abortion operation, or will society state that mothers must be allowed to murder [2] their children? [1] Ignore rape, incest, etc. for argument's sake because we're discussing the freedom between men and women. [2] Remember this scenario equates abortion to murder. I am not espousing personal beliefs. My username was chosen when I was contemplating suicide, not due to religious leanings.

roenxi 2y ago

The anti-abortion "argument" (everyone on all sides are really just asserting things because there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about) is that abortion is murdering a child. If someone accepts that frame, would you attempt to argue that there is no social contract to protect the lives of children? That seems like a tough argument to carry.

max__dev 2y ago
I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments. What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...
therealpygon 2y ago
Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective engagement. Defunding education, defunding school food, defunding numerous programs that actually protect children in favor of cash in their pocket. Morality sold cheaply or abandoned for convenience, except when forcing their will on others, especially if it only affects someone else.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country. Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
  - therealpygon 2y ago
    It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.

GenerocUsername 2y ago

I for one reject your social contract and despise the self-righteousness of people who think a social contract overrides personal liberty. You want others to partake in your social contract, but you would probably be appalled if that contract demanded people not be overweight (affects others wherever healthcare is in limited supply), or maybe the contract demands people not be gay (lowers birth rates and therefore societies GDP… also increases disease transmission). Social contracts come and go with time and yours is as wrong tomorrow as my proposed one is today

johnisgood 2y ago
I have made a lengthy comment on the burden of obesity on our healthcare and people in general. I have a radial nerve injury (and no text-to-speech) so I cannot find it right now nor re-write it. I absolutely agree with you and your conclusions. I made my reply here, from a slightly different perspective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749123
cthalupa 2y ago
Personal liberty is fine, until it starts infringing on my own, which these include. You don't want to vaccinate? You being infringing on my ability to stay healthy while participating in society. Vaccines aren't fully effective, not everyone can be vaccinated, etc., so to eradicate disease we rely on the majority of people getting vaccinated. You not using my preferred pronouns or name is simply a rude thing to do. If we remove the bizarre political fixation on it, if I tell you my name is John and you call me Joanna just because you think I look more like a Joanna, you're an asshole. I'm not in favor of making being an asshole illegal, but I will call you one. I'm actually fully OK with there being consequences to being overweight! It does put a large burden on the healthcare system. Right now the healthcare system is largely privatized so, well, it's not like public health is the primary concern for it anyway, but if it were, sure I believe that there should be actions taken to reduce obesity. We have a lot of promising anorectic medications right now, primarily in the form of the GLP-1 and related medications, and I'd be in favor of overweight and obese people needing to also go on these if they want access to public healthcare for issues that are related to metabolic disorder, etc. But we're in a privatized system, so... You're starting to really stretch the argument thin with the gay bit, though. Disease transmissions here still requires the informed consent of both parties - I'm not going to get HIV from a gay person without having some form of consensual sex with them, outside of behaviors that are already criminal - rape, contaminating something I'm eating with their semen, etc. This isn't the same as refusing vaccination and then participating in society for diseases that are transmissible like covid or ebola or similar. For birth rate/GDP, we do not enforce actions on straight couples when it comes to childbirth (or STDs, which while transmission rate is generally lower for some STDs for heterosexual intercourse it's obviously not exclusively limited to homosexual intercourse) so these suppositions seem to be targeted based not on the general outcome but simply on the fact the person is gay. If we started mandating child birth for straight people for whatever reason, then we can start having this conversation - but even in a fairly dystopic world where we are requiring married couples have kids, we can still provide options for gay people. Require them 'sponsor' an additional child for a straight couple, require them adopt, require surrogacy and them raising a child, etc. But targeting them just because of their sexual orientation would be quite obviously bigoted.

monkeywork 2y ago

>abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals). Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default. Both the parents are impacted by the choice either physically, emotionally, financially, and responsibility. Situations where the two parents conflict on this choice are common and the power is incredibly asymmetrical and can/does lead to abuse.

nielsbot 2y ago
Can you describe which asymmetry you mean?
- monkeywork 2y ago
  The female has asymmetrical power in this situation regarding the two parents. Example: - Most pro-choice supporters would support the female deciding that she was too young to become a mother and terminating a pregnancy not because of any medical reason, but because of the changes to her life it would cause (ie, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet"). This same option is not available to males. If the female has decided to keep the child, the male in most countries is now automatically bound to this decision and generally, at least financially, will have their life impacted even if they have the same reasoning (ie, "I'm not ready to be a father yet"). Alternatively, if the female has decided to terminate and the male desperately wants the child, there is no recourse. I say asymmetrical because the results/responsibility of the decision are forced to be shared, however, the power to make said decision lies only with a single party. I do not propose a solution here or make a judgement I'm simply pointing it out because the person I replied to made it sound like this decision is a simple and doesn't impact others.
poincaredisk 2y ago
People who oppose abortion usually consider abortion to affect 3 people, which probably influences their opinion on that topic.
zamalek 2y ago
> Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default. That's exactly what I said?

johnisgood 2y ago

"Social contract" is a made up term used to legitimatize government intervention, i.e. statist by nature, and built upon violence. It is a myth used to justify state coercion and centralized authority. > A society is certainly conceivable in which there was no governmental intervention in family life or education and in which the sole function of law enforcement was the upholding of universal rights. I would also refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473. https://store.mises.org/Myth-of-the-Social-Contract-Refuting-Common-Arguments-for-Government-Authority-P11268.aspx https://store.mises.org/Myth-of-the-Social-Contract-Refuting... and https://cdn.mises.org/1_3_3_0.pdf https://cdn.mises.org/1_3_3_0.pdf and whatnot.

nielsbot 2y ago
common decency? mutual respect? live and let live? the government has a role in doing the most good for the most people. for example, keeping companies from dumping poison into rivers.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I am in favor of "common decency, mutual respect, live and let live". That is not what "social contract" is about (unless you keep playing the redefinition of words game, which many people do when arguing in favor of "muh social contract"), and no, we do not need the Government for that. https://www.academia.edu/7185307/Libertarianism_and_Pollution https://www.academia.edu/7185307/Libertarianism_and_Pollutio... https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-government-pollution-control-fails https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-government-pollution-contro... https://mises.org/mises-daily/libertarian-manifesto-pollution https://mises.org/mises-daily/libertarian-manifesto-pollutio... Among others... Please do ask if you want to read more about it. I personally like to read a lot of things with what I disagree. Please reply to the other person's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473), too, I wonder what you'd come up with. :)
  - nielsbot 2y ago
    > despise the self-righteousness of people who think a social contract overrides personal liberty my reply to this bit is: Take your personal liberty to Libertarian Island.

ashoeafoot 2y ago

The social contract is "hack all the social contracts" and take decency hostage to trojan horse all the things