Right to LifeBoard

Teresar wrote:

It's alright, your highness.  I'm a Christian as well.  You are welcomed here.

Thank you

Thermopylae wrote:

nothing important

"Racist Commune" "slavery" "infanticide"
Very evidently a troll and/or flamebaiter.

Steel Belt Empire wrote:

Do you have a more complicated answer?

Sorry I was away, but the answer the others gave was great.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Click to show...

It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling. (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism.

There are also practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden or quadriplegics. Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them?

To Vendellamoore's point, the Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already-established custom. Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]).

Finally, much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not solely baptism by immersion. If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

This is a great explanation, I'd just add for the sake of historical flavor that Christians have for a long time run into weird circumstances that required them to consider the limits of what is acceptable. In northern Europe (Iceland and Norway) there is obviously a general shortage of wine, wheat, and available water in winter. There was never any question of replacing wine and wheat, because they are necessary, but it was determined that snow, melted by hand, was acceptable water for baptizing an infant in an emergency. Beer, however, was not acceptable (a real canonical question that someone sent a letter to the pope about, and the response was recorded in many law collections).

Maslivanioa wrote:

Hello

Greetings! Warmest welcome to Right to Life and NationStates! We hope your journey is pleasant.

I'm sick rn and they still got me working (I am in agony)

Vendellamoore wrote:

I'm sick rn and they still got me working (I am in agony)

Oof.  Sorry about that.  I pray that you get better real soon.

Bhadeshistan wrote:

Hello everyone!

Greetings!

Hello 👋, out of curiosity, I was wondering what y'all best argument against abortion is?

Protestant Pope wrote:

Hello 👋, out of curiosity, I was wondering what y'all best argument against abortion is?

Well, this was the essay I wrote for my English Class this year:

On the Subject of Abortion and the Decline of American Morality
The subject of abortion is perhaps one of the most heated and volatile debates of our century. Heavily politicized and steeped in broad preconceptions, the topic is certainly the most backwards and often confusing issue to be addressed in our nation. Often when an individual attempts to address the matter, they get bogged down and disoriented by the whir of thoughts and emotions, and end up resigning to the side of the majority. I, in an attempt to clear the fog of confusion, shall share the assured truth that abortion is not only deeply immoral, but also deeply damaging to the American society as a whole.

In order for me to make my case for the pro-life movement, I must first dismantle the false claims of the opposing side, of which are the foundations of their arguments. Among the pro-choice circles is a frequent and prevalent claim that the life of the baby starts after its body is fully developed in the womb. This allegation is false on several grounds, but for the sake of time, I shall give two. I will begin with first, the definition and characteristics of life. Life, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary, is “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death”. A baby, from the moment of conception, is a growing organism with the capacity for function and eventual reproduction. Therefore, the baby, from conception, is in fact alive, which entirely dismantles the opposing argument above. Furthermore, all life can be described with seven characteristics. These seven characteristics, according to the National Library of Medicine are “the ability to respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment”. In simpler terms, the entity in question must be able to breathe, grow, produce waste, produce more of its kind, maintain life, move, and respond to changes in the environment around them. The National Library of Medicine further states that, “...these are common characteristics of living beings, not life, and not all living beings exhibit all of them. The mule, for example, does not reproduce. Yet, nobody doubts that a mule is alive.”. Even though the unborn baby may not display all of the characteristics, it still exhibits enough at the moment it was conceived, that it is without a doubt, alive. The second rebuttal to the opposing claim is one of simple logic. If the human is not truly alive until the point that it is fully developed, it is completely within reason to extend such a thought to the idea that no one is living until the ripe age of twenty five, when the prefrontal cortex of the brain is completely developed. Thus, using the strange and backwards logic that is commonplace among pro-choice thought, it should be completely and entirely legal for a parent to put down their child of age seventeen. This is, of course, nonsense.

Now that the question regarding the beginning of life has been handled, one might ask, ‘How is this important?’. To answer this question, it is best to start from the standpoint of the law and the constitution. Because the baby is alive from the point of conception, abortion is in fact an unjust practice. To quote the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This sentence is the foundation of our law, and the philosophy that our nation was founded upon. Abortion not only takes away the baby’s right to life, but also their right to liberty and their ability to pursue happiness. The intentional ending of a human life (unless done out of self defense, or justice) is punishable by a life sentence in prison. Therefore, being that the baby is alive, laws supporting abortion are not only unconstitutional, but entirely unjust, as they call for the ending of a human life. Many may make the counter argument that abortion should be allowed because the life of the mother could be at risk, or the child may not be born healthy. This claim, however, poses a massive problem. The chances of a fatal childbirth are one in five thousand, and the chances of any kind of birth defect are one in thirty three. Not only are these risks incredibly low, abortion has a near one hundred percent infant fatality rate, meaning that abortion does not save lives, but takes them.

Now comes the biggest issue, the moral consequences. An unborn child, from the point of conception, is a living human being. Therefore, abortion can indeed be classified as murder, or at the least, manslaughter. The Pew Research Center states that over 60% of adults in the U.S agree that the practice of abortion should be legal in all or most cases. According to Guttmacher.org, 55.9 million abortions occurred between years 2010 and 2014. Thus, in the same time span that the holocaust took place, the largest recognized genocide in human history, spanning about 11 million deaths, abortion has killed more than five times that of the Holocaust’s already sickening death rate. In fact, abortion continues, not only to exist, but to grow, making it the largest and most supported mass killing in human history, and we are the ones who are supporting it. This needs to end.

Abortion is, in conclusion, a deeply immoral and unjust practice, one that ends more lives than it claims to save. So what should be done about it? It must be removed. We, as human beings, must stand up for the rights of our unborn children. We, with the power of petition, and the right to vote, must rid our nation of this reprehensible practice. If one cannot take care of their child, we must urge them to put them up for adoption, and in turn, make the legal process of doing so easy and as painless as possible for the parents. Some may say that it is the woman’s right to do as she wants. but this is not about the woman’s right to get rid of their child, but the child’s right to live. Children are indeed the future, and we must all, together, end the destruction of that future.

Is there a discord for this group or is communication just on here?

Basedment wrote:

Is there a discord for this group or is communication just on here?

I don’t believe we currently have a discord server. We used to use Proboards, but that died out. I’d be for starting a discord server if people were interested.

Basedment wrote:

The Basedment is here 😎

We’re a Constitutional Monarchy, conservative, pro-life, and all-around based country.

Happy to be here

Welcome, king!