5 ms·

This is a fascinating paper with a lot of interesting context, the mid-1900s were a different time for medical ethics. I grew up in the Adventist church and it

This is a fascinating paper with a lot of interesting context, the mid-1900s were a different time for medical ethics. I grew up in the Adventist church and it's been wild seeing it drift so far from its original distinguishing stances. When I was a kid, I primarily went to Adventist schools. However, one year after my family moved there wasn't an Adventist school available. I went to a local evangelical school instead. It was a real eye-opener. The evangelical school had a program of outright child brain-washing about abortion that I'd never heard as an Adventist. As a fifth grader I was getting daily updates about the Supreme Court nomination battle over (disgaced Nixon lackey) Robert Bork, because as early as the eighties court packing was a core strategy for anti-choice movement. There was daily news about abortion protests they were running. When I went home and asked my parents about it, they told me as Adventists we had the bible's stance on abortion: the bible says nothing about abortion. Adventists hospitals even allowed abortions to be performed on prem since they had no doctrinal problem with it. Fast forward to now, a lot of Adventist members are loudly anti-choice, anti-vaccine (the church leadership had to post a very delicately worded statement about vaccines because they operate respectable medical schools, and had to please both the many facebook-addled cranks in their pews as well as the sane professionals in their medical school staff), generally indistinguishable from generic right-wing evangelicals. The Adventist core membership of today I have no doubt would've been mostly pro-slavery and definitely would have no qualms about shooting people in war. The paper talks about the church's effort to go from 'sect' (firm moral stances putting them at odds with the majority) to 'denomination' (compromising their morals to fit in), and the church of today I'd say has run as far away as they could from being a sect.

chinathrow 2y ago
Boy am I glad I went to a state school without this crap.
- skyyler 2y ago
  The ideological games being pushed on children in state schools is different, but it's not entirely absent. That being said, I'll take historical revisionism over the history of the empire over, uh, the evangelical option.
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    > The ideological games being pushed on children in state schools is different, but it's not entirely absent. People say this all the time and it's facile. Yes ideology is everywhere and you cannot be completely free from it. But the critical difference between secular ideology and religious ideology is that (in a properly functioning society) you can challenge/question/probe secular ideology.
    - econ 2y ago
      Nah, you can't really. Before you question the textbook you have to wonder if it is worth it. Since the successfully indoctrinated believers won't let you get away with it it is not worth it. So much so that they never get to hear other versions of anything.
      - MSFT_Edging 2y ago
        What textbook taught in the United States has anything with an ideological stance that isn't at the very least revisionist towards making the US look better? Most history taught in the states already waters down the historical facts to make us look better.
        jncfhnb 2y ago
        Depends on how you characterize the War of Northern Aggression I suppose
        skyyler 2y ago
        Also depends on how you characterize the genocide of the natives.
      - almostgotcaught 2y ago
        > Nah, you can't really. Before you question the textbook you have to wonder if it is worth it. This is some weird goalpost moving - I didn't say it's easy I said it's possible. Contrast with the fact that you fundamentally cannot question religious ideology - it's literally against the rules.
- dang 2y ago
  Ok, but please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. They're invariably less interesting (because more repetitive, and more indignant) than the specific point they tangent off from. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
paxcoder 2y ago
Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder, what with science informing us that human life begins at conception and our consciences, and God's moral law recorded in good book that murder i wrong. I notice you use the word choice and classify the pro-life position s "anti-choice" which makes it seem like a bad thing. However the "choice we are talking about here is directly and intentionlly causing death to an innocent human being. I think it is very important to understnd that. To borrow an atheist trope, you and I agree that murder is evil and immoral in most cases. I just think it's wrong in one more case, when the victims are yet unborn too (I reckon murder is intrinsically evil and immoral)
- hulitu 2y ago
  > Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder But murdering people in wars is quite ok, isn't it ? /s
  - paxcoder 2y ago
    [dead]
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > what with science informing us that human life begins at conception No. Science can't say when life begins any more then it can say how much sand is needed to make a heap. Because it's a question of how we choose to define things, not a question of objective fact. (And fyi... since what makes humans special is our rather absurd level of ability to think and learn things, human life begins with the ability to form long-term memories. Which is well past the end of infancy. This may seen counterintuitive, but there's a sound scientific basis for it.)
  - paxcoder 2y ago
    [dead]
- mullingitover 2y ago
  > Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder Which christians are you referring to? Plenty of christians disagree with you and will tell you it's a complicated issue with no black and white answer. There isn't even a completely agreed-upon definition of what a christian is[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6gzr6p/americans_of_reddit_what_is_something/diurezl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6gzr6p/americans...
CalRobert 2y ago
I recall an organization that was proud of Desmond Doss (one of only 3 conscientious objectors to get the medal of honor) and pre-political Ben Carson (I never was able to square the person I saw campaigning with the extremely well-regarded neurosurgeon). I wonder what happened.
wolfhumble 2y ago
[flagged]
- 6stringmerc 2y ago
  The Bible says a lot more directly about holding slaves and that being acceptable than anything you could argue regarding abortion as a divine directive. Even the New Testament is pro slavery in some respects. The citations noted, regarding abortion, are really stretching things. Remember this is the same book that says “Oops we can’t let the Benjaminites die out because the prophecies won’t come true unless there are 12 tribes so because we won’t intermarry with them as punishment they can kidnap and keep women from a nearby people as wives so they survive.” The article is fascinating.
  - bitsage 2y ago
    If one considers life to begin at conception, abortion unambiguously violates the commandment not to kill. I grew up Adventist, and contrary to OP, I didn’t know anyone pro-abortion. Ironically, literalism by evangelicals is why they opposed chattel slavery and now oppose abortion. The Bible doesn’t command Christians to own slaves and keeping other commandments literally would conflict with chattel slavery, but it does command not killing (murder).
    - bentobean 2y ago
      I grew up in the Adventist church. I am still a Christian (although no longer Adventist). While I don’t agree with it at all, it is actually true that there are some weird pockets within the denomination that either overtly or tacitly approve abortion. It’s very bizarre.
      - mullingitover 2y ago
        Not just tacitly approved, the church has run hospitals that have performed a lot of them[1]. > Early Adventism published positions in harmony with the Physicians' Crusade Against Abortion, though it was not active in that movement. The church produced its first set of abortion guidelines in 1970, when American attitudes toward abortion had changed and some of the church's hospitals were experiencing in creasing pressure from their communities to provide abortion services. > Less than a year after the first set of abortion guidelines was developed, the church revised and expanded it. The resulting liberalized guidelines have allowed Adventist hospitals a great deal of freedom in their abortion practices, a freedom that has resulted in a large number of abortions being performed. Although the church has been hesitant to let it be known, at the present it is clearly not, in either policy or practice, limiting its medical institutions to therapeutic abortions. ^ From 1991. I think the church, historically, has been so conservative that they are unwilling to contort the scripture to get it to support their political ambitions to the same extent other churches are (although lately that's not so true). This is similar to how the Southern Baptists initially supported and ran an op-ed praising the Roe v Wade ruling[2]. [1] https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-history-of-adventist-guidelines https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-hi... [2] https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/ https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-wer...
timewizard 2y ago
> because as early as the eighties court packing was a core strategy for anti-choice movement. Bork was a staunch capitalist and wanted to destroy anti monopoly laws. His position on abortion was that it should be a state legislature issue. You spot the problem but I believe you misattribute the source in a way that actually only benefits Bork and those who would champion him.
hulitu 2y ago
> the mid-1900s were a different time for medical ethics. But sadly, only nazis and japanese are bad, others (CIA) are good.

chinathrow 2y ago

Boy am I glad I went to a state school without this crap.

skyyler 2y ago
The ideological games being pushed on children in state schools is different, but it's not entirely absent. That being said, I'll take historical revisionism over the history of the empire over, uh, the evangelical option.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  > The ideological games being pushed on children in state schools is different, but it's not entirely absent. People say this all the time and it's facile. Yes ideology is everywhere and you cannot be completely free from it. But the critical difference between secular ideology and religious ideology is that (in a properly functioning society) you can challenge/question/probe secular ideology.
  - econ 2y ago
    Nah, you can't really. Before you question the textbook you have to wonder if it is worth it. Since the successfully indoctrinated believers won't let you get away with it it is not worth it. So much so that they never get to hear other versions of anything.
    - MSFT_Edging 2y ago
      What textbook taught in the United States has anything with an ideological stance that isn't at the very least revisionist towards making the US look better? Most history taught in the states already waters down the historical facts to make us look better.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        Depends on how you characterize the War of Northern Aggression I suppose
        skyyler 2y ago
        Also depends on how you characterize the genocide of the natives.
    - almostgotcaught 2y ago
      > Nah, you can't really. Before you question the textbook you have to wonder if it is worth it. This is some weird goalpost moving - I didn't say it's easy I said it's possible. Contrast with the fact that you fundamentally cannot question religious ideology - it's literally against the rules.
dang 2y ago
Ok, but please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. They're invariably less interesting (because more repetitive, and more indignant) than the specific point they tangent off from. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

paxcoder 2y ago

Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder, what with science informing us that human life begins at conception and our consciences, and God's moral law recorded in good book that murder i wrong. I notice you use the word choice and classify the pro-life position s "anti-choice" which makes it seem like a bad thing. However the "choice we are talking about here is directly and intentionlly causing death to an innocent human being. I think it is very important to understnd that. To borrow an atheist trope, you and I agree that murder is evil and immoral in most cases. I just think it's wrong in one more case, when the victims are yet unborn too (I reckon murder is intrinsically evil and immoral)

hulitu 2y ago
> Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder But murdering people in wars is quite ok, isn't it ? /s
- paxcoder 2y ago
  [dead]
tbrownaw 2y ago
> what with science informing us that human life begins at conception No. Science can't say when life begins any more then it can say how much sand is needed to make a heap. Because it's a question of how we choose to define things, not a question of objective fact. (And fyi... since what makes humans special is our rather absurd level of ability to think and learn things, human life begins with the ability to form long-term memories. Which is well past the end of infancy. This may seen counterintuitive, but there's a sound scientific basis for it.)
- paxcoder 2y ago
  [dead]
mullingitover 2y ago
> Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder Which christians are you referring to? Plenty of christians disagree with you and will tell you it's a complicated issue with no black and white answer. There isn't even a completely agreed-upon definition of what a christian is[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6gzr6p/americans_of_reddit_what_is_something/diurezl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6gzr6p/americans...

CalRobert 2y ago

I recall an organization that was proud of Desmond Doss (one of only 3 conscientious objectors to get the medal of honor) and pre-political Ben Carson (I never was able to square the person I saw campaigning with the extremely well-regarded neurosurgeon). I wonder what happened.

wolfhumble 2y ago

[flagged]

6stringmerc 2y ago
The Bible says a lot more directly about holding slaves and that being acceptable than anything you could argue regarding abortion as a divine directive. Even the New Testament is pro slavery in some respects. The citations noted, regarding abortion, are really stretching things. Remember this is the same book that says “Oops we can’t let the Benjaminites die out because the prophecies won’t come true unless there are 12 tribes so because we won’t intermarry with them as punishment they can kidnap and keep women from a nearby people as wives so they survive.” The article is fascinating.
- bitsage 2y ago
  If one considers life to begin at conception, abortion unambiguously violates the commandment not to kill. I grew up Adventist, and contrary to OP, I didn’t know anyone pro-abortion. Ironically, literalism by evangelicals is why they opposed chattel slavery and now oppose abortion. The Bible doesn’t command Christians to own slaves and keeping other commandments literally would conflict with chattel slavery, but it does command not killing (murder).
  - bentobean 2y ago
    I grew up in the Adventist church. I am still a Christian (although no longer Adventist). While I don’t agree with it at all, it is actually true that there are some weird pockets within the denomination that either overtly or tacitly approve abortion. It’s very bizarre.
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      Not just tacitly approved, the church has run hospitals that have performed a lot of them[1]. > Early Adventism published positions in harmony with the Physicians' Crusade Against Abortion, though it was not active in that movement. The church produced its first set of abortion guidelines in 1970, when American attitudes toward abortion had changed and some of the church's hospitals were experiencing in creasing pressure from their communities to provide abortion services. > Less than a year after the first set of abortion guidelines was developed, the church revised and expanded it. The resulting liberalized guidelines have allowed Adventist hospitals a great deal of freedom in their abortion practices, a freedom that has resulted in a large number of abortions being performed. Although the church has been hesitant to let it be known, at the present it is clearly not, in either policy or practice, limiting its medical institutions to therapeutic abortions. ^ From 1991. I think the church, historically, has been so conservative that they are unwilling to contort the scripture to get it to support their political ambitions to the same extent other churches are (although lately that's not so true). This is similar to how the Southern Baptists initially supported and ran an op-ed praising the Roe v Wade ruling[2]. [1] https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-history-of-adventist-guidelines https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-hi... [2] https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/ https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-wer...

timewizard 2y ago

> because as early as the eighties court packing was a core strategy for anti-choice movement. Bork was a staunch capitalist and wanted to destroy anti monopoly laws. His position on abortion was that it should be a state legislature issue. You spot the problem but I believe you misattribute the source in a way that actually only benefits Bork and those who would champion him.

hulitu 2y ago

> the mid-1900s were a different time for medical ethics. But sadly, only nazis and japanese are bad, others (CIA) are good.