Responding to a comment | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

Responding to a comment

Uploaded: Sep 29, 2015
In response to Dim's post, "Tim, when you claim that the Right to Die bill removes God from the equation for people of faith, what do you mean? That it prevents you from believing in God? That the law requires people of faith to end their lives? I do think so. Aren't you really saying that it protects others from having your superstitions forced upon them? Isn't that what you're really objecting to?

I believe God created this earth and created all of its inhabitants. The Bible also says that he knew us before we were in our mother's womb. I also believe that he numbers our days and is sovereign.

I think there is plenty of confusion among Christians about the authority of the Bible and how that applies to life in this century. For instance, the Presbyterian Church USA has as its official policy that it is both pro-abortion and anti-abortion. That defines confusion to me.


The slope is very slippery once you allow wide leeway for interpretation of Scripture, or, for that matter, redefine what the law clearly says—the so-called right to marry that five Supreme Court justices dreamed up to force gay marriage upon our society.

For an example of how far to the extremes politicians can go, consider that 177 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against a bill to prohibit physicians from killing babies who were born alive during an abortion procedure. As Fox commentator Bill O'Reillly correctly put it, those votes were to justify infanticide—a similar argument goes against late-term, partial birth abortions. When do the "rights" of the mother trump the life of the baby?

Sadly, the Democrats will not tolerate any limits to a woman's "right" to kill her baby.

Among those voting against were Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida, Jackie Speier of San Mateo, and our own Eric Swalwell of Dublin and Mark DeSaulnier of Concord (who formerly represented the valley in the state Senate).

Incidentally, Jason L. Riley, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, offered an interesting perspective in the Sept. 16 edition on abortion. He pointed out that there is a huge racial disparity in abortion rates with black women. Research showed that more black babies were aborted in New York City than were born. Black babies accounted for 42 percent of the total abortions there where blacks make up 25 percent of the population.

In Georgia, where whites out-number blacks by 2-1, 53 percent of the abortions were performed on black babies and black women terminated pregnancies at rates 2.5 times greater than whites.

Riley suggests that one reason poor black women abort at much higher rates than either whites or Hispanics is black marriage rates are much lower than either of the others. The women may doubt that the father will stick around to support and raise the child.


Comments

 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Sep 29, 2015 at 1:40 pm

(Editor's note: The below comment refers to a previous reader comment that has since been removed.)

what a vile comment...must come from a twisted plutonian

now billy...give it a flush and go back from whence you came...tee hee


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Damon, a resident of Foothill Knolls,
on Sep 29, 2015 at 11:35 pm

"Sadly, the Democrats will not tolerate any limits to a woman's "right" to kill her baby."

Hmmm. To me it seems that Republicans will not tolerate any limits on their being able to inject themselves into some of the most personal and private decisions that a family can have involving painful topics such as the proper course to take after a case of rape or incest results in a pregnancy. I would not dare think of inviting myself into a private family discussion at their dinner table while they wrestle with deep questions of dealing with a family misfortune in a manner consistent with their morality and religion. But you would, Tim? You would be comfortable pulling up a chair and inviting yourself into their private family discussion and lecturing to them about how they should ignore their religion and their sense of morality and act according to your religion and your sense of morality instead? While you're at it, I suppose you would also feel comfortable with raiding their family refrigerator and helping yourself to their leftover BBQ, beer, and ice cream. Why not? After all, doing that would be a lot less intrusive than injecting yourself into a private family discussion involving possible abortion, and you've already indicated that you're perfectly comfortable with doing that.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Hmmm ..., a resident of Birdland,
on Sep 30, 2015 at 7:52 am

So, this blog starts out on end-of-life issues -- and then suddenly veers towards the origins? And Big Government should control the decision-making at both ends?

Odd crop of conservatives they're growing these days.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by beach bum, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Sep 30, 2015 at 10:57 am


And while they're in my refrigerator they'll place a listening device there for your president's NSA.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Hmmm ..., a resident of Birdland,
on Sep 30, 2015 at 11:53 am

Not to worry, BB -- this'll fix you right up: Web Link


 +   2 people like this
Posted by beach bum, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Sep 30, 2015 at 12:59 pm

I love it.. I need one of those!

Of course my comment was hyperbolic in nature...

It was intended as an ironic retort to the exaggerated outburst/post above. This may have been lost on certain readers..


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Dave, a resident of Danville,
on Sep 30, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Tim - When you have to quote Bill O'Reilly, you are already losing the argument.

You speculation about the higher rate of abortions among black women completely overlooks the possibility that they have less access to contraceptives and reproductive counseling than white women.

Hey, but why bother try to provide some real analysis when simple speculation will suffice, huh?


 +   6 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Sep 30, 2015 at 3:56 pm

"Dave": " Less access to contraceptives" ? If you can not afford $10 for a box of condoms you can not afford to have sex, period. Your misguided liberal approach to blame society for an individuals inability to take responsibility for their own actions is exactly why our countries moral decline is at an all time high.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Dave, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 1, 2015 at 10:08 am

Poor American -

Perhaps if you learned how to read or interpret written works better, you would not be making such hostile or ill-informed comments.

Nowhere did I blame society. That is your right-wing spin.

I merely said that Tim failed to consider the POSSIBILITY that black women have less access to contraceptives and reproductive counseling. That is certainly a real possibility, with right-wing zealots actively legislating measures designed to restrict access to reproductive medical providers in many states -- which disproportionately affects poor and black women.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 1, 2015 at 11:53 am

"Dave": Once again with the "less access to contraceptives" argument, really? Walmart does not care if you are black, blue, green, poor or rich, anyone can actually walk in and buy a box of condoms. I will say it again since you apparently are dense or just do not want to comprehend my prior statement: If you can not afford $10 for a box of condoms you can not afford to have sex, period. It has nothing to do with your "right wing zealot" argument(sounds like Hillary's right wing conspiracy theory) but is a simple common sense fact that if you can not afford $10 for a box of condoms you should not be having sex. But your party is not about common sense or personal responsibility, it is about playing the race or whatever card you try to play to argue you have a right to......(fill in the blank) and the rest of us are responsible for paying for your actions and mistakes. What will people like you do if Dr.Carson is elected and you can no longer play the race card?


 +   8 people like this
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 2, 2015 at 10:55 am

@American,

Dave makes a good point. You keep bringing up condoms, but there are also more expensive, more convenient contraceptives that may be out of reach to the less affluent. Even using your condom example, that can add up to $20 to $30/month. Easy for the middle class, tough for a minimum wage earner.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Fiscal conservative, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 pm

It sounds like a case for contraception.
I thought we were 'free' individuals as Americans, ah, but such is not the case. Our government picking and choosing favorites, forces some, to provide for others, who won't or don't provide for themselves. Whatever is, is, we must march on. So, as a fiscal conservative, given those choices, I would much rather buy/provide contraception than pay for free childcare for the 'poor,single mom', who will get the kid a 'free lunch' label and they are on the gravy train right through free college (for the 'under-served') taking limited seats from struggling middle-income, who are paying FOR the 'free-lunchers', to start the cycle over, with another poor single-mom story.
Amazing! These must be 'immaculate comceptions', since they cannot support a child. It is quite cruel the make the choice to breed a baby they can not feed, clothe, or educate. Very cruel! But, poor dear, we'll pick up the tab for you.
I do not want to pick up the tab, as a free American. but I am not given that choice any longer. Truly, I'd happily pay to have an IUD inserted in anyone collecting all the assorted and varied 'free-lunch 'programs', which cost taxpayers an unconscionable amount of our earnings. There is somewhat of a 'self-limiting' amount to be spent on contraception. But seemingly, there is NO end, NO limit to what some liberal politicians are willing to force me, a producer, to give away to those non-producers, who seem to only produce offspring!! Please, I am a conservative, let me buy them contraception, it would save me and all of us an amount beyond our imagination.
That contraception would certainly save millions on abortions too. So everybody should be happy. Eliminates abortions so social conservatives should be happy. Improves 'quality' of life making 'unwanted child' happy.
Saves taxpayers a lifetime bundle of supporting the unwanted child and irresponsible mother. Of course some 'poor moms' would not like us to remove their current 'free ride'. But all of us, and our country would be better off, financially, and with a better 'quality' of all American lives.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Fiscal conservative, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 3, 2015 at 12:11 am

No need for abortions when contraception such as condoms, IUD, or pills are used. Why the conflict or discussion. Contraception of your choice makes it easy to prevent the reason for an abortion, in the first place.
Certainly doctors 2000 years ago didn't have a clue how babies got here. In the mid 1800s, doctors were still 'bleeding' a US President to 'cure' his ailment..that's how much was known about medical science in previous centuries. Anything beyond that is just superstition. Our deist founders were pretty clear about keeping all religions out of our government and laws. There had been a great deal of religious fighting in England, and our founders wanted to protect us from any religious conflicts. Smart men. Personally and privately, individuals can do and practice as they wish. But there is no government sanctioned religion. Thus, no superstitions from any particular religion allowed in government.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Fiscal conservative, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 3, 2015 at 12:11 am

No need for abortions when contraception such as condoms, IUD, or pills are used. Why the conflict or discussion. Contraception of your choice makes it easy to prevent the reason for an abortion, in the first place.
Certainly doctors 2000 years ago didn't have a clue how babies got here. In the mid 1800s, doctors were still 'bleeding' a US President to 'cure' his ailment..that's how much was known about medical science in previous centuries. Anything beyond that is just superstition. Our deist founders were pretty clear about keeping all religions out of our government and laws. There had been a great deal of religious fighting in England, and our founders wanted to protect us from any religious conflicts. Smart men. Personally and privately, individuals can do and practice as they wish. But there is no government sanctioned religion. Thus, no superstitions from any particular religion allowed in government.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Fiscal conservative, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 3, 2015 at 12:11 am

No need for abortions when contraception such as condoms, IUD, or pills are used. Why the conflict or discussion. Contraception of your choice makes it easy to prevent the reason for an abortion, in the first place.
Certainly doctors 2000 years ago didn't have a clue how babies got here. In the mid 1800s, doctors were still 'bleeding' a US President to 'cure' his ailment..that's how much was known about medical science in previous centuries. Anything beyond that is just superstition. Our deist founders were pretty clear about keeping all religions out of our government and laws. There had been a great deal of religious fighting in England, and our founders wanted to protect us from any religious conflicts. Smart men. Personally and privately, individuals can do and practice as they wish. But there is no government sanctioned religion. Thus, no superstitions from any particular religion allowed in government.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Dim Talk, a resident of Canyon Oaks,
on Oct 3, 2015 at 8:25 am

So what you are saying, Tim, is yes--you believe that the government should force your religious opinions onto others. Thank you for clearing that up


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Fiscal conservative, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Oct 3, 2015 at 6:59 pm

To the opening issue of right-to-die, but along the lines of a 95 year old that has signed a DNR, and has another episode of whatever, a very religious one of the three family members doesn't want to honor the DNR, instead wants to return parent to skilled nursing for the third time. The one dishonoring has always preached 'God is in charge' on everything, but then in the hospital suddenly does not vote to keep God 'in charge' any longer. Instead, wants to intrude by forcing use of machines, ignoring God's will, and dishonoring the 95 yr old parent's request to be natural. Hypocrite comes to mind.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Oct 4, 2015 at 7:59 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Here's what Tim said in his original post:

"This bill is one that people of good will can agree to disagree. For those who see nothing beyond life on this earth, ending pain and suffering is a NOBLE GOAL. It's also an action that removes a loving Heavenly Father from the equation for those of us who believe that God creates all life and is sovereign." <my emphasis>

I'm not quite sure why "Dim Bulb" (boy is that an apt description) continues to hammer Tim on the religious aspects of the paragraph when he clearly plays it down the middle. You'd get a lot more accomplished by just saying you hate religion and the people who practice it (I don't practice, by the way).

It doesn't offend me that Tim has these views, in fact, he can proselytize all he wants. That's his RIGHT!

I find it funny that the same people who whine about the religious are the same ones who insist that they/we accept other alternative lifestyles.

Sure gives credence to the saying "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist".

Hypocrites. Wear it with pride...


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Neiik , a resident of Walnut Creek,
on Jan 25, 2016 at 10:04 pm

He shoots close and far individuals and articles that, regardless of their straightforwardness, announce their enrollment in the workmanship world through the ideal juxtaposition of hues, the cut and confining.
[url="Web Link]


 +  Like this comment
Posted by <a href="http://solitairetimes.com">solitaire free</a>, a resident of Blackhawk,
on Feb 8, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Play solitaire for free no download or registration needed. Solitaire is a game of card and you can also get to play this game online for free of cost and enjoy solitaire.Click on this link



Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Follow this blogger (Receive an email when blogger makes a new post)

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

A tax grab that likely goes no where
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 585 views

Nominations due Monday for TV30’s Tri-Valley ‘Coach of the Year’ award
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 175 views

 

Readers' Choice Ballot is here

It's time to decide what local business is worthy of the title "Pleasanton Readers' Choice" — and you get to decide! Cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 21st. Stay tuned for the results in the June 23rd issue of the Pleasanton Weekly.

VOTE HERE