Discuss…
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[…] From Sifting Reality: […]
-
[…] FACTS folks!!! Since 1973 there have been… 524,279 deaths from fire arms.. 54,559,615 abortions Deaths from abortion vs guns since 1973 ? Sifting Reality That means there were 10,307% more abortions then gun deaths.. remember abortions are legal!!! If […]
-
[…] From Sifting Reality: […]
Sifting Reality 
It’s about cattle control.
33 abortions to one gun related death in America.
A little more SELF control will help both numbers.
I realize that for some reason that I have not quite discerned, you have a disdain for my thoughts on this issue, but I would like to propose a question because I like that you are so passionate about it and I agree that I hate both of those numbers. What do you do with the soteriological implications of the number of naturally induced abortions?
This is the questions that keeps me from being as passionate about my position on the issue as you are.
Andrew B. Heard
http://www.andrewbheard.com
What do you think the soteriological implications are?
By naturally induced, do you mean the pregnancies which the mother’s body doesn’t take? The difference between a natural death and an intentional taking of a life should be obvious, morally speaking.
John,
Maybe you aren’t aware of the meaning of the word soteriological? Obviously I understand the difference between murder and natural death. The question that I am posing is based on the number of natural abortions that occur and the correlating salvific implications. Research the number of naturally induced rejections of embryos in the first zygote stage. The question that this raises is, does heaven or hell consist mostly of souls that never past the first zygote stage of development?
Maybe it does, honestly I don’t know, Scripture doesn’t tell me. This is why in the vast majority of situations, I am pro-life, because I don’t know. It does raise an interesting and difficult question in the plan of eternal life if the majority of people die at such a premature stage of development.
Andrew
I know what soteriology is, I was asking what you thought the implications were. There are some who believe that unless there is an active conscious acceptance of Jesus as savior, hell awaits. Then some believe children before the “age of accountability” will be ushered into heaven. That’s why I asked.
okay that makes sense, I couldn’t tell that from your response since you just seemed to slam me for the difference between murder and natural abortion? While age of accountability has no Scriptural backing, I defiantly am not in the first camp. I was serious when I asked what your thoughts are. I really don’t have an answer.
Andrew,
I am pro-life on both philosophical and theological grounds. The soteriological question is theologically interesting and existentially painful. Full disclosure: I am a Catholic Christian. The age of accountability is not, as you correctly noted, revealed specifically in Scripture. However, the Catholic community wrestled in the early centuries with the idea of unbaptized infants dying. Augustine reluctantly inferred they went to hell. Obviously, that’s problematic in many ways. I propose not any easy answer but a direction along which one can move. While Baptism is the ordinary sacrament of salvation, even Augustine admitted that we can not limit the action of the Holy Spirit to the visible Church or Sacraments. (Note his considering that Plato was somehow saved!) One thing we do have in Scripture is the affirmation that God wills that all human beings be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. Therefore, out of justice, one could reason theologically that every human should have at least the opportunity to say Yes to Christ. Children who die because of miscarriage would appear not to have rejected Jesus and not to have chosen damnation. Contemporary Catholic theology admits we do not know answers clearly in such a thorny mystery, but, in prayer, I think it makes sense to entrust these souls to the mercy of God. We do not have any definitive statement of faith here but, the virtue of hope should be operative instead. (Von Balthasar) A Protestant theologian whom I greatly respect is J.P. Moreland. I do not know if he has written on this but I know that some evangelical theologians have been wrestling with the scope of salvation over the past few decades. Do you know any Christian thinkers in your Church tradition who are struggling with this like Jacob wrestling with God? Thanks and please pray for me.
Fraternally in Jesus, Neil Kane
It seems to me, Andrew, that the question is rather moot. That is, it has no real bearing on how we, in our limited capacity as human beings, view the question of abortion at all. What happens naturally is irrelevant to what happens by choice in this matter. And while the question can engage us in stimulating speculation, to answer the question one way or the other cannot be allowed to affect decisions we make regarding abortion.
You might also enjoy this little chart I made. Gun deaths from suicide: http://wp.me/psW0l-Vt
Thanks atticus, that’s a great one to keep on hand. It really fades the presumptions behind raw numbers.
I agree. Statistics are a funny thing.
If Republicans really cared about kids they wouldn’t use parent’s mistakes as reasons to cut funding on children’s programs… and they wouldn’t throw away any of the kid’s lives for total gun freedom.
In what world do Republicans use parent’s mistakes to cut funding? Could you cite a bill where that is the case?
And how does further restricting law abiding citizens throw away kids lives? Isn’t it criminals (you know, people who dont follow the law) who kill kids?
what’s the source on these numbers?
2015. Gun 16,200 per 100,000 homicide. 1390 abortions per 1000,000. Let’s get our numbers straight. Some of us do research
maybe your reading comprehension isnt up to par. Its not a graphic showing percapita., rather totals. each icon represents 100,000 of each.
Sorry for being dense, but I don’t see what this has to do with anything other than there are more deaths due to abortion than those caused by guns. (If it’s accurate at all, which almost none of these things are anymore.) WTF does Obama or the Democrats have to do with that? If there were more ‘abortion controls’ it would probably mean more abortion deaths, not fewer. And if you want to stick with this logic, then the Dems should also ‘control’ cancer, heart disease, water (drowning danger), cars and, hey, aging.
But not to worry, the Dems are gone and Trump will fix everything. Right?
Obama and most Dems promote abortion; and in every successful abortion at least 1 person dies and sometimes more than one. 54 million deaths dwarfs gun deaths & govt funding sometimes PAYS for such killing. No tax dollars should be used for these killings. To say these numbers aren’t factual (andsome come from abortion facilities themselves as well as the government) is disingenuous and a cop out. No there would not be MORE abortions if there were more legal limits on abortions. See ABORTING AMERICA & later works by Bernard Nathanson, MD stating bluntly that the pro’choice’ advocates with whom he had worked in the 1970’s deliberately lied about this issue. He became a pro-life doctor, in his own words, “after presiding over 60,000 deaths “ at his abortuaries alone.
Exactly right!