Normally I tried to avoid this kind of issue…

… but I wonder why people can be quite knee-jerk reaction towards religion… sigh….

It started with the story in Dubai about the court convicted a heavily pregnant woman of accidentally killing her unborn child. The court result is appearantly wrong because it can be argued easily that it is an accident. Correct me if i am wrong, do we charge someone manslaughter if his/her car bang into another car and caused fatality due to a punctured tyre?

But of course the prosecution argument about to protect fetus’s right to live is the one getting the irk of this blogger, which in summary i will say:

what anti-abortionist want: fetus=life=human being=must be protected from negligence,abuse and dangerous activities=prosecute women who harm or abuse their fetuses=pregnant women lives under dictatorship=miscarriage/accidents/anything goes wrong in pregnancies=criminal liabilities=eugenic!=government control lives=totalitarian!

Well, she puts in 2 example how these things could go wrong: 1) Stacy fell from ladder and charged with manslaughter after losing her baby, 2) Anna’s baby born with heart defect and prosecution charged her with child abuse because she was using anti-depressant and smoking during her pregnancy, which linked to the birth defect.

For example 1: it goes back to my earlier analogy – can we charge someone with manslaughter if it is an accident? For example 2: somehow this example is scarily close to reality if this proposal is approved in Finland, which is not a hotbed for anti-abortionist or Sharia law adherent. From a libertarian standpoint of view, i agree we should educate the pregnant women about the danger of smoking and whatever substance that might harm the fetus but NOT by using the law! But somehow the concern about the well-being of fetus is not limited to anti-abortionist/religious people/Sharia but also other do-gooder/nanny state/non-religious people as well, as shown another similar proposal from Denmark too.

And with her angry charges against anti-abortionist (probably some group of people she has in mind), dragged the Christian along as well, which I am and I could not understand why I am eventually becoming a totalitarian, as shown in the “=” links above. May be I am overreact to this guilt by association thingy, but being lumped together with all the opinions which sometimes I don’t share does not leave a good taste in the mouth 😦

Math! How long does it take to reach 200 million?

Instapundit ask the reader (e.g. me) to do the math exercise:

Question left as an exercise for the reader: How long, at 10,000 / day, does it take to reach 200 million?

Well, 10 000/day will make it 3.65 million/year, and 200 ÷ 3.65 = 54.79 years. So half a century (50 years) to reach 200 million, as according to … 

Ten thousand Chinese become Christians each day, according to a stunning report by the National Catholic Reporter’s veteran correspondent John Allen, and 200 million Chinese may comprise the world’s largest concentration of Christians by mid-century, and the largest missionary force in history.

So it kinda left me wonder what could make Instapundit surprised if these predictions bore out: the 200 million in half century part, or the 10 000/day part? 

My theological worldview

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan.   

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God’s grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan: 86%

Reformed Evangelical: 79%

Classical Liberal:  64%

Emergent/Postmodern:  61%

Neo orthodox:  57%

Charismatic/Pentecostal:  43%

Fundamentalist:  43%

Modern Liberal:  36%

Roman Catholic:  18%

Theological worldview quiz