Wow just wow: GOP congressman Tim Murphy opposed abortion, until his mistress said she was pregnant

Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Social Conservatives care more about how you will vote than the moral character.

 

I wouldn't say that, exactly. Constituents vote for officials who they think will best represent them, but there can be a separation between representation and personal belief. I remember Biden was quoted as personally not believing in abortion but he wasn't willing to impose that on others. That's a respectable position.

This guy's problem is that he has strongly voiced his personal opposition to abortion as a facade for voters. That's hypocritical and looks badly to your voter base when you lie to them. You'll gain their favor when you personally believe in those values because constituents like to be represented by like-minded officials, but it's not a requirement, obligation, or expectation.

 

GOP hypocrite, what is unexpected about that?

 

It's nice to elect good people, but I have zero expectation of it. They need to be scared into voting the right way by their constituents.

That being said, this guy should definitely resign.

 

If the community at large considered a foetus a child, that would be a good point. But people and societies have long disagreed about where one draws that important, ineffable line, as has been repeated in millions of threads on this issue. Some see it at egg fertilization, and some societies have seen even a born child as not fully human until they are speaking. Birth has been the most logical definition of the start of life for most societies for a long, long time.

And again, if one cares about unborn foetuses, they better be just as mad at current IVF and implantation technologies as they are at desperate women without means who seek legal abortions. But no, the silence from the right on that part of the issue, with thousands of created and sacrificed "unborn children" continues to deafen us.

 

Not logical at all.

There is no anatomical distinction moments before/after birth, but we can kill it if it's before?

It's an aesthetic distinction, harder to rationalize killing it if you can see it.

 

Pretty much this. Big furor when Dubbalubbadubdub banned embroynic stem cell research on material slated for the trash heap.

Soc puppet Cons be like "think of dem childrens!?!?!"

Okay. Think harder.

 

I care about the job they do. If that is impacted by their personal opinions, then I care about their personal opinions. If not, I don't care. What is Machiavellian about that?

Not sure what you are asking about Trump. If he's doing things wrong that somehow affects the welfare of our country or the globe, then obviously that matters to me.

There is also a difference, in function, between an elected President or even an elected Senator and an elected member of the House. The chief function of a House representative is to advocate for their constituency. So divergence between personal opinion and public advocacy, in my opinion, means much less for them.

And I am not particularly content with the fact that House congressmen are so partisan and contribute to our political polarization. But this is a deeper problem in how our government works, isn't it? Given the way the institution is setup, "hypocrisy" among House officials is to be expected.

 

He gone...

Embattled GOP Rep. Tim Murphy to retire
The Pennsylvania lawmaker, who opposes abortion rights, was reported to have suggested his mistress terminate a pregnancy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/04/tim-murphy-abortion-mistress-243456

 

Considering the two axes of moral character and conformity to political views in representation (bill authoring, voting, sponsorship, etc.), obviously the ideal candidate is of high moral character and conforms to one's political views in their representation and the worst candidate is one of low moral character who stands opposed to the voter's political views in his representation. The question then is, does a candidate of questionable morals who best represents the voter stand above a morally sound candidate that stands opposed to the will of the voter. I would agree with @durvasa in that I am more concerned about the job my representative is doing than the goings on in their personal life. Would those on the left prefer a candidate that opposes the death penalty but testified in favor of execution at the sentencing of someone that killed his wife, or one that legislatively fights to keep the death penalty, but in his personal life testified in favor of leniency for his wife's killer?

 

Speaking for myself, I vote first on character, second on policy.

 

You've brought this argument in two threads. I'm curious since you are someone who is very against abortion and clearly see it as a moral position. Would you be comfortable with a representative who believes as you do regarding abortion but is representing a district that has a pro-choice bent voting for a bill that restricts abortion?

 

So people criticize this guy for putting forth legislation that goes against his own personal interests? If anything, he's a great representative of the people. He votes for what they want, not what he needs.

 

You and Durvasa raise good and compelling points. I tend to agree with both of you and I think some of the standards that we hold politician's personal lives too are unrealistic and in many ways not relavant to the job they are doing. Let's face it but most of us have personal failings of one sort of the other and have all done things we would probably not known widely. In many cases those don't prevent us from holding down a job or helping people in other ways.

Also this idea that everyone in Congress is all bad and they are all hypocrites I think is a very unfair generalization. There certainly is a lot of corruption but also many in government really do believe in what they are doing. At the same time if we hold this incredibly high standard for politicians regarding personal behavior that just invites people who are either unrigidly absolutists in their beliefs and / or pathological liars. In many ways the scrutiny on all aspects of politicians lives is already doing that.

As for SM's particular question I will say this from someone who opposes the eath penalty. I would prefer the first considering that legally and morally even someone who opposed the death penalty would be required to testify against a someone indicted of a capital crime. Context is important though. I think someone who says they oppose the death penalty on principle but vociferously demands it that might be a different situation. A good case to look at would be some of the victims of the Boston Bombings. Several were against the death penalty yet were willing to testify against Tsarnaev. At the same time they also spoke out against sentencing him to death.

 

The party of God and basic morality strikes again!

 

Don't disagree, but they fail that test constantly. At the very least, though, this creates a political issue for him, which is fitting, because clearly his stance was political to begin with.

 

Hence the political problem he should now face.

 

For clarification, I meant testify at sentencing in support of a death sentence, not testify during the guilt phase of the trial.

 

When you campaign on social/religious and take the coward's way out when you get a woman pregnant outside of marriage, then you deserve to be lambasted.

Social/religious issues have been such a large pillar of identity politics for the GOP and its sickening. Glad this congressman showed us the power of religious freedom...

 

Or he’s just a stinking hypocrite that lies about believing in that legislation because it knows he’ll get votes and he’ll never actually make it a law anyway