Pro-Life Congressman asks mistress to get abortion

[_canpakes]

He just voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks.

Shades, if you don't show up right about now and ask, "Why did it take him so long?", then imma gonna be disappointed.

[_I have a question]

Is it possible to have a personal belief that contradicts a professional responsibility?

The Congressman in the OP shows it’s possible.

The question is about whether the public should know that their congressman carries that conflict of interests. And when someone serves in a public office, the answer is clearly that they should.

[_Dr. Shades]

He just voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks.

Shades, if you don't show up right about now and ask, "Why did it take him so long?", then imma gonna be disappointed.

Looks like you beat me to it. :-)

[_EAllusion]

Murphy is resigning. Maybe he can get a job at Focus on the Family.

[_subgenius]

But is it not preferable for an elected to official to promote the "belief" of his constituency over his own belief should the two beliefs ever come in conflict? Would that still hypocritical of him/her? I mean, most elected officials are charged with "representing" their constituency without usurping that representation for their own view....In other words, if all the people who elected an official insisted that this official introduce, promote, and encourage legislation to make abortion illegal then the official should do so, even if the official had no personal issue with abortion, correct?

I expect our representatives to not only represent us, but to use good judgment when doing it. To be truthful in their personal as well as public views. Lying for the sake of getting elected defeats that purpose. I have more respect for the honest disagreement, than the lie for approval.

Did he lie about something?
And isn't it good judgment to just simply represent? Or did you, like most liberals, have a more fascist desire for how to govern. ..of the people and for the people - except when this one person judges otherwise?

[_canpakes]

And isn't it good judgment to just simply represent? Or did you, like most liberals, have a more fascist desire for how to govern. ..of the people and for the people - except when this one person judges otherwise?

Can we be sure that his stand on the issue of abortion represents every one of his constituents?

Put another way, are you stating that all of his constituents are anti-abortion?

[_Chap]

A representative is not a delegate. I suspect that the Founding Fathers understood the difference.

If there was no difference, Congress could be replaced by online opinion polls.

[_The CCC]

And isn't it good judgment to just simply represent? Or did you, like most liberals, have a more fascist desire for how to govern. ..of the people and for the people - except when this one person judges otherwise?

No, not in every circumstance. Why go to all the expense of having a legislature? Just have a plebiscite for every issue, or better yet a small group of rich men deciding for everyone. Yes he did lie. He presented himself as an anti-abortion Pro-lifer. While trying to force his girl friend to have an abortion. If you think
I want fascism you have no clue as to what a Fascist is. I believe in having a democratic republic within the constraints of a written constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minority.

[_canpakes]

And isn't it good judgment to just simply represent? Or did you, like most liberals, have a more fascist desire for how to govern. ..of the people and for the people - except when this one person judges otherwise?

No, not in every circumstance. Why go to all the expense of having a legislature? Just have a plebiscite for every issue, or better yet a small group of rich men deciding for everyone. Yes he did lie. He presented himself as an anti-abortion Pro-lifer. While trying to force his girl friend to have an abortion. If you think
I want fascism you have no clue as to what a Fascist is. I believe in having a democratic republic within the constraints of a written constitution guaranteeing the rights of the minority.

sub's argument is broken.

If Murphy were to simply represent his constituents in their entirety, then he would favor the choice option, to allow his constituents to decide for themselves if an abortion was appropriate to their situation.

Yet, in sub's opinion, that would be the more 'fascist' option... as opposed to, say, lawmakers telling their constituency that they have no choice in the matter, and must bend to the will of the politician's particular version of god or his particular interpretation of scripture.

Not sure if subs could possibly go more sideways there, but maybe he'll try to dig an even deeper hole later.

[_The CCC]

I'm not in favor of abortion. I just think it should be safe, legal, and rare.