Dick's sporting Goods pays $4,000 for someone to have an abortion
- Thread starter peldom10
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Likely a form of activism. It’s become popular for corporations and brand names to get involved in social activism because it’s a way to tap into a consumer base. Paying $4,000 for an abortion is a publicity stunt.
It screams to the pro-abortion people “Come shop here because we sympathize with you!” However, it alienates pro-life people.
We saw during the Trump presidency wide spread political segregation from many public vendors. Don’t forget the left will flat-out ban people from Internet platforms and refuse business with them if they disagree with their politics: I.e., Trumpers, Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and maybe others.
In my opinion Dick’s is appealing to leftist sympathies just like they did when they banned guns from their stores. It isn’t about money as much as it is about political statements to them.
It screams to the pro-abortion people “Come shop here because we sympathize with you!” However, it alienates pro-life people.
We saw during the Trump presidency wide spread political segregation from many public vendors. Don’t forget the left will flat-out ban people from Internet platforms and refuse business with them if they disagree with their politics: I.e., Trumpers, Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and maybe others.
In my opinion Dick’s is appealing to leftist sympathies just like they did when they banned guns from their stores. It isn’t about money as much as it is about political statements to them.
-
3
- Show all
.
Re: Dick's sporting Goods pays $4,000 for someone to have an abortion
It's likely just a business decision rather than politics.
For example: Amazon offers its employees 20 weeks of paid maternity
leave. Let's say, hypothetically, that minimum wage with Amazon is $15.00
an hour. For full time workers that would amount to $12,000 worth of non
productive pay; and then of course the infant added to the worker's list of
dependants would increase the company's health insurance expenses.
NOTE: Public businesses like Dick's and Amazon have a fiduciary obligation
to generate profits for their share holders. It's no surprise then that they
would cut as many corners as possible to save a buck.
_
Re: Dick's sporting Goods pays $4,000 for someone to have an abortion
It's likely just a business decision rather than politics.
For example: Amazon offers its employees 20 weeks of paid maternity
leave. Let's say, hypothetically, that minimum wage with Amazon is $15.00
an hour. For full time workers that would amount to $12,000 worth of non
productive pay; and then of course the infant added to the worker's list of
dependants would increase the company's health insurance expenses.
NOTE: Public businesses like Dick's and Amazon have a fiduciary obligation
to generate profits for their share holders. It's no surprise then that they
would cut as many corners as possible to save a buck.
_
-
1
- Show all
AOC was on the Steven Colbert show the other night.
She in as much confirmed what many of us foresaw coming after the "leak" of the SCOTUS opinion on Roe .
Federalism is going to make its reach into codifying abortion, birth control, gay marriage.
The latter two subjects being in Justice Thomas's opinion next in being overturned by the court.
When your adversary warns of his plans, pay attention.
There are many blocks to come in the construction of the new prison the empowered Democrats have planned for us.
She in as much confirmed what many of us foresaw coming after the "leak" of the SCOTUS opinion on Roe .
Federalism is going to make its reach into codifying abortion, birth control, gay marriage.
The latter two subjects being in Justice Thomas's opinion next in being overturned by the court.
When your adversary warns of his plans, pay attention.
There are many blocks to come in the construction of the new prison the empowered Democrats have planned for us.
-
1
- Show all
I don't think I have ever shopped there.. no reason. I would go there look around. There are many righteous working there and shining for Christ so others can see for God so loved the world. As if this sin is some how worse then other sins lol. God hates all sin.. there is no ok or white lie.. Yet is why He came and died PRAISE GOD GLORY TO JESUS YES ! I don't think I have ever shopped there.. no reason. I would go there look around. There are many righteous working there and shining for Christ so others can see for God so loved the world. As if this sin is some how worse then other sins lol. God hates all sin.. there is no ok or white lie.. Yet is why He came and died PRAISE GOD GLORY TO JESUS YES !
Yes. Tucker Carlson addressed this recently and holds corporate America responsible for pushing and funding abortions. The profit motive is behind this evil, but there are also Leftist billionaires paying protesters to politicize absolutely every issue. The ordinary citizen is paying for all this anarchy.
Since this question about Dick's support for abortion is in a Bible Discussion Forum, I'll suggest a different take on the topic, from the bible.
The LORD of hosts commanded the death of child and infant:
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1Sam 15:2-3, NRSV)
A reason for such a drastic measure is given in the Bible:
"But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God." (Deut 20:16-18, NRSV)
Isn't the body of Christ to deal with those within the assembly, not the pagans outside in the world?
"For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. 'Drive out the wicked person from among you.'” (1Cor 5:12-13, NRSV)
Observing those heathen who wish to kill their offspring, to me it merely means less heathens in the world to inflict damage on the body of Christ. I see nothing in the New Testament instructing the church to fight abortions in the Roman Empire. Abortion itself does not influnce my vote, but the militant pro-abortion types invariably have other issues that I do strongly oppose and vote against.
The LORD of hosts commanded the death of child and infant:
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1Sam 15:2-3, NRSV)
A reason for such a drastic measure is given in the Bible:
"But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God." (Deut 20:16-18, NRSV)
Isn't the body of Christ to deal with those within the assembly, not the pagans outside in the world?
"For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. 'Drive out the wicked person from among you.'” (1Cor 5:12-13, NRSV)
Observing those heathen who wish to kill their offspring, to me it merely means less heathens in the world to inflict damage on the body of Christ. I see nothing in the New Testament instructing the church to fight abortions in the Roman Empire. Abortion itself does not influnce my vote, but the militant pro-abortion types invariably have other issues that I do strongly oppose and vote against.
In post-millennialist thought it is recognized that there are periods in history of declension in Church and State, 3 steps forward, one step back, over and over. The last 100 years or so have seen a great deterioration in Church and State, gradually over time, and it has been brought about by humanism presenting itself as Christian or religious.
The US was guaranteed a "republic" NOT a democracy for the very reason we are now experiencing, mob rule and with the invasion at the southern border it will get worse. Republicans have let the leftists, Communists push this false idea of a 'right to vote', which is not in the Constitution and have not opposed it as they should have. There certainly should be a literacy test to vote as well as proven citizenship by ID card, a poll tax is a pretty good idea also. Deadbeats have NO right to vote the money out of the pockets of the working man. To call that racist is to say some races are not literate or cannot be productive and pay a poll tax and THAT is the true racism.
Article IV, Section 4 US Constitution
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
I have no duty to reform the heathen of their godless acts. Theologically there is more biblical evidence that a human being, a person, does not exist at conception, but at some point later at ensoulment. That was the general view among most Protestants other than the Lutherans in the past. Therefore the rush to forbid all abortions by law I reject totally. The 15-20 week limit is conservative enough to my mind.
The State certainly has the duty to protect human beings, persons from murder; but, an embryo is not a human being or person. When our nation was founded, viability is when the unborn had legal standing as a human being which was the predominant view then. In the past there were laws on the books against adultery, but they weren't enforced except as it came up in divorce proceedings; I'd view the heathen killing their offspring up to point of birth in that manner.
The US was guaranteed a "republic" NOT a democracy for the very reason we are now experiencing, mob rule and with the invasion at the southern border it will get worse. Republicans have let the leftists, Communists push this false idea of a 'right to vote', which is not in the Constitution and have not opposed it as they should have. There certainly should be a literacy test to vote as well as proven citizenship by ID card, a poll tax is a pretty good idea also. Deadbeats have NO right to vote the money out of the pockets of the working man. To call that racist is to say some races are not literate or cannot be productive and pay a poll tax and THAT is the true racism.
Article IV, Section 4 US Constitution
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
I have no duty to reform the heathen of their godless acts. Theologically there is more biblical evidence that a human being, a person, does not exist at conception, but at some point later at ensoulment. That was the general view among most Protestants other than the Lutherans in the past. Therefore the rush to forbid all abortions by law I reject totally. The 15-20 week limit is conservative enough to my mind.
The State certainly has the duty to protect human beings, persons from murder; but, an embryo is not a human being or person. When our nation was founded, viability is when the unborn had legal standing as a human being which was the predominant view then. In the past there were laws on the books against adultery, but they weren't enforced except as it came up in divorce proceedings; I'd view the heathen killing their offspring up to point of birth in that manner.
In my first reply on this thread I expressed a bit of dark hyperbole about how the leftists and Communists types can abort all their unborn for that means fewer of their type in the future. At my age I rarely do frequent revising of my articles of belief, but this topic caused me to do a rethink.
I've been a creationist for about 30 years as to the origin of the soul, and I remain a creationist. In the past I've considered ensoulment to take place at viability. I did so for a couple reasons. First, men of God as far back as the LXX placed ensoulment at the point the fetus was fully formed. Then the babe in Elizabeth's womb leaped for joy at 6 months time. I still believe in delayed ensoulment but I now have come to believe it happens at birth or just prior to birth, rather than at today's medical viability.
I reviewed many Scriptures that to my mind treat an individual, a person, as existing from birth, not from conception, such as Judg 16:17; Job 10:18, 19; Psa 58:3; Isa 46:3, etc. I do not recall the unborn being treated as an individual while in the womb, other than the verses where God's omniscience is described and He knew us from before creation, so I find that argument about an individual or person existing in the womb as pretty weak.
I found that a similar sentiment is stated in the Systematic Theology of Louis Berkhof also, ensoulment at birth. Earlier president of the SBC , W. A. Criswell, also believed it was only after birth that an individual existed. Various evangelicals of 30 years ago were not anti-abortionists. I also found a statement that truly connected with me: "While early Christianity still assumed that ensoulment occurred the moment just before birth, the presumed moment of the creation of the soul came to be moved further and further towards the point of conception on account of scientific findings." https://nac.today/en/a/893822
This brought to my mind how the propaganda of the 'religious right' in the past 30-40 years sas started using medical science to date ensoulment, rather than biblical and theological understanding I knew a great change happened when the 'religious right' types complained that the NASB, 1977 edition used the long held word "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22, so in the 1995 NASB it was changed to something like premature birth. I've read the Hebrew wording support for the modernist translation, and as with many arguments based on such weak arguments from the original language, it defies common experience of mankind, commonly called common sense.
I view the question of traducianism and creationism on the origin of the soul not agreed upon by the church in history for the Bible does not give solid and certain guidance on it. In the matter of timing of ensoulment there is variation among good Christian men of God as well. For a Christian, a child is a gift of God and it certainly not to be frivously aborted or aborted as a birth control, so it is to be cherished, but such view is not to be enacted into law to force others. Since these matters are not certain in religious belief among Christians, I've come to reject any law enacted that outlaws abortion at any time prior to birth. To make such a law is to violate the constitutional ban on religious establishment, and to place the ideas of one extreme segment of Christianity into law would be unconstitutional.
Therefore, I no longer consider what I posted a dark hyperbole, but as my literal belief. On a side note, this is another reason I no longer embrace the label "evangelical" and more and more see the 'religous right' as rank fundamentalism gone beserk, and this is causing me to de-emphasize calling myself, MAGA. In fact, in November this year I'll probably vote for a Democrat for the first time in over 50 years, because the crazy female that Trump endorsed(for some unexplained reason) won the GOP Primary. I do not vote for women for leadership roles in government or church for it defies the Bible and 1900 years of church history, and I certainly do not vote for crazy people!
Forgive the poor phrasing and sentence structures, and spelling; but I have been pushed for time recently. I know most on this forum disagree, but that to me is why it should NOT be a matter of civil law to bind Christian, or non-Christian people of other views.
I've been a creationist for about 30 years as to the origin of the soul, and I remain a creationist. In the past I've considered ensoulment to take place at viability. I did so for a couple reasons. First, men of God as far back as the LXX placed ensoulment at the point the fetus was fully formed. Then the babe in Elizabeth's womb leaped for joy at 6 months time. I still believe in delayed ensoulment but I now have come to believe it happens at birth or just prior to birth, rather than at today's medical viability.
I reviewed many Scriptures that to my mind treat an individual, a person, as existing from birth, not from conception, such as Judg 16:17; Job 10:18, 19; Psa 58:3; Isa 46:3, etc. I do not recall the unborn being treated as an individual while in the womb, other than the verses where God's omniscience is described and He knew us from before creation, so I find that argument about an individual or person existing in the womb as pretty weak.
I found that a similar sentiment is stated in the Systematic Theology of Louis Berkhof also, ensoulment at birth. Earlier president of the SBC , W. A. Criswell, also believed it was only after birth that an individual existed. Various evangelicals of 30 years ago were not anti-abortionists. I also found a statement that truly connected with me: "While early Christianity still assumed that ensoulment occurred the moment just before birth, the presumed moment of the creation of the soul came to be moved further and further towards the point of conception on account of scientific findings." https://nac.today/en/a/893822
This brought to my mind how the propaganda of the 'religious right' in the past 30-40 years sas started using medical science to date ensoulment, rather than biblical and theological understanding I knew a great change happened when the 'religious right' types complained that the NASB, 1977 edition used the long held word "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22, so in the 1995 NASB it was changed to something like premature birth. I've read the Hebrew wording support for the modernist translation, and as with many arguments based on such weak arguments from the original language, it defies common experience of mankind, commonly called common sense.
I view the question of traducianism and creationism on the origin of the soul not agreed upon by the church in history for the Bible does not give solid and certain guidance on it. In the matter of timing of ensoulment there is variation among good Christian men of God as well. For a Christian, a child is a gift of God and it certainly not to be frivously aborted or aborted as a birth control, so it is to be cherished, but such view is not to be enacted into law to force others. Since these matters are not certain in religious belief among Christians, I've come to reject any law enacted that outlaws abortion at any time prior to birth. To make such a law is to violate the constitutional ban on religious establishment, and to place the ideas of one extreme segment of Christianity into law would be unconstitutional.
Therefore, I no longer consider what I posted a dark hyperbole, but as my literal belief. On a side note, this is another reason I no longer embrace the label "evangelical" and more and more see the 'religous right' as rank fundamentalism gone beserk, and this is causing me to de-emphasize calling myself, MAGA. In fact, in November this year I'll probably vote for a Democrat for the first time in over 50 years, because the crazy female that Trump endorsed(for some unexplained reason) won the GOP Primary. I do not vote for women for leadership roles in government or church for it defies the Bible and 1900 years of church history, and I certainly do not vote for crazy people!
Forgive the poor phrasing and sentence structures, and spelling; but I have been pushed for time recently. I know most on this forum disagree, but that to me is why it should NOT be a matter of civil law to bind Christian, or non-Christian people of other views.