CDZ I have to wonder how prevalent hypocrisy on abortion is....

[usmbguest5318]

It's no secret that the GOP and its members are staunch and strident right-to-lifers and bible thumpers. Accordingly, when one of the GOP's prominent members is shown to be an utter hypocrite about either matter, it's a big deal.

Last week, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy (first seated in 2003) -- a Representative who's received accolades from the Family Research Council for abortion and family values positions, a man who's been endorsed by LifePAC, which opposes abortion rights, and who is a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus, an affiliation that is often cited by his office -- bid his mistress (he has a wife too) to get an abortion.

Murphy's mistress, Shannon Edwards, wrote:

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week."
Source
​

Really?!!? Just how hypocritical on abortion can one be? Not more than that.

Murphy's hypocrisy on this reeks of elitism as much as it does hypocrisy. [1] While he and his mistress are adequately comfortable, thus paying for an abortion is not a hardship (his mistress is the former wife of doctor and she has a private psychology practice), the man has routinely opposed measures that in one way or another aimed to make safely obtaining the procedure more accessible to individuals of lesser means.


Supplemental Note:

1. I don't have a general problem with wealth-based elitism. It doesn't bother me at all when exercised on an individual basis by an individual. I have a problem with governmentally codified elitism whereby one set of life-course opportunities is made available to elites and not to others, or whereby one set of life-course opportunities is, in effect, denied to population segments who are not sufficiently wealthy.

 

[OldLady]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

I don't concur with his views on abortion, but I could at least respect the man were it so that the views he espoused were genuine. It appears now the stances he championed were little but things he said to win office, perhaps also to gain a measure of increased personal power and the perqs that come with it.

ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in.

Once again, for me, it's a matter of integrity. The man was elected based in large measure on what he purportedly believed in, which is supposedly what he shared with voters when he sought their approbation.

As usual, I hold the voters equally culpable for voting for him. If one reads the linked article, one will find that not only is the man an hypocrite, he's a jerk of the highest order. Why voters don't demand better, more complete disclosure about the individuals whom they elect, one'd think at least they'd have enough integrity of their own to abstain from voting for an individual.

A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.

Really? I wouldn't know. As I see and have seen it, among a principal's duties is to stand for what they genuinely believe. That's really everyone's call, but when one is in a decision making position, the onus to do so is vastly greater and more important to honor.

The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

To wit...The man could have shown the integrity it takes to simply state that he's changed his mind on abortion and owned his prior misunderstanding of the matter and its exigencies. After having said so, the man could then continue his term and run again, allowing the chips to fall as they might. Americans have a tremendous capacity for forgiveness, but one must earn it. The course the man has chosen doesn't even make an effort at even attempting to do so.

 

[OldLady]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

I don't concur with his views on abortion, but I could at least respect the man were it so that the views he espoused were genuine. It appears now the stances he championed were little but things he said to win office, perhaps also to gain a measure of increased personal power and the perqs that come with it.

ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in.

Once again, for me, it's a matter of integrity. The man was elected based in large measure on what he purportedly believed in, which is supposedly what he shared with voters when he sought their approbation.

As usual, I hold the voters equally culpable for voting for him. If one reads the linked article, one will find that not only is the man an hypocrite, he's a jerk of the highest order. Why voters don't demand better, more complete disclosure about the individuals whom they elect, one'd think at least they'd have enough integrity of their own to abstain from voting for an individual.

A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.

Really? I wouldn't know. As I see and have seen it, among a principal's duties is to stand for what they genuinely believe. That's really everyone's call, but when one is in a decision making position, the onus to do so is vastly greater and more important to honor.

The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

To wit...The man could have shown the integrity it takes to simply state that he's changed his mind on abortion and owned his prior misunderstanding of the matter and its exigencies. After having said so, the man could then continue his term and run again, allowing the chips to fall as they might. Americans have a tremendous capacity for forgiveness, but one must earn it. The course the man has chosen doesn't even make an effort at even attempting to do so.

How fortunate for you, Xelor, that you have been able to live a life with no moral ambiguity or any situations where in order to keep a paycheck you had to endorse a policy you did not agree with.
Most of us would find your posts highly idealistic and not particularly keyed to reality.
But once again, how fortunate for you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

I don't concur with his views on abortion, but I could at least respect the man were it so that the views he espoused were genuine. It appears now the stances he championed were little but things he said to win office, perhaps also to gain a measure of increased personal power and the perqs that come with it.

ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in.

Once again, for me, it's a matter of integrity. The man was elected based in large measure on what he purportedly believed in, which is supposedly what he shared with voters when he sought their approbation.

As usual, I hold the voters equally culpable for voting for him. If one reads the linked article, one will find that not only is the man an hypocrite, he's a jerk of the highest order. Why voters don't demand better, more complete disclosure about the individuals whom they elect, one'd think at least they'd have enough integrity of their own to abstain from voting for an individual.

A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.

Really? I wouldn't know. As I see and have seen it, among a principal's duties is to stand for what they genuinely believe. That's really everyone's call, but when one is in a decision making position, the onus to do so is vastly greater and more important to honor.

The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

To wit...The man could have shown the integrity it takes to simply state that he's changed his mind on abortion and owned his prior misunderstanding of the matter and its exigencies. After having said so, the man could then continue his term and run again, allowing the chips to fall as they might. Americans have a tremendous capacity for forgiveness, but one must earn it. The course the man has chosen doesn't even make an effort at even attempting to do so.

How fortunate for you, Xelor, that you have been able to live a life with no moral ambiguity or any situations where in order to keep a paycheck you had to endorse a policy you did not agree with.
Most of us would find your posts highly idealistic and not particularly keyed to reality.
But once again, how fortunate for you.

Fortune had/has nothing to do with it. They are simply the choices I've made. Some might, indeed at times some did, call them risks I've taken. Sometimes I paid the price for the risks I took and other times the risk paid off for me. Either way, one can get another job, but one cannot recover lost virtue.

 

[deanrd]

My favorite is GOP Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.



Wanna bet he speaks for the majority of the GOP? Even the poor ones?

 

[usmbguest5318]

My favorite is GOP Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.



Wanna bet he speaks for the majority of the GOP? Even the poor ones?

That guy is nothing but a bombinating demagogue. That clip was nothing more than him a rant of one talking-point after another and not one bit of him articulating what he's supposed to: solutions.

We discourage you from taking that risk to hire another employee.

Say what? A company will hire another employee when the profit resulting from having that employee -- both direct profit and indirect profit such as, but not limited to, increased turn ratios -- merits doing so. Companies don't generally hire people for altruistic reasons. (There may be an exception here and there -- the boss' kid, friend, relative, whatever, for instance -- but that's not the norm.)

Education cannot be improved until we solve the real problem.

He supports that line by saying that the school with the greatest quantity of students getting lunch subsidies (or perhaps free lunches) have the worst test scores. I guess it eludes his purview that kids who aren't nourished also don't perform well on tests.

• Nutrition and Students’ Academic Performance
  
• NUTRITION AND ITS EFFECTS ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE HOW CAN OUR SCHOOLS IMPROVE?
  
• THE LINK BETWEEN NUTRITION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
  
• Role of Nutrition in Learning and Behavior
• The role of nutrition in children's neurocognitive development, from pregnancy through childhood

Being hungry and not being motivated or able to perform one's best isn't limited to children.

(paraphrased) There are no repercussions for not showing up for a parent teacher meeting.

He said that to amplify his diatribe about giving children food, which was what he cited as his example of the government giving citizens goods and services, and demanding nothing in return.

Really? Just how avaricious and heartless must one be to deny a child a friggin' meal or attach strings to whether a child be given a meal?

 

[JoeMoma]

It's not uncommon for people to do things that the "know" to be morally wrong when they feel they are in a desperate situation. First of all Tim Murphy is a hypocrite. He did wrong by having an affair even though he is married. Then he was willing to kill his own offspring to cover up the affair. Makes me wonder how the kid will feel about this when he/she grows up and learns daddy tried to get Mom to have an abortion.

In this situation Tim Murphy is scum.

Having said this, we are all sinners. So I should hold my stones.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

As I pondered in a previous post, how would you feel if you learned that you father tried to get your mother to abort you just to protect his reputation.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

As I pondered in a previous post, how would you feel if you learned that you father tried to get your mother to abort you just to protect his reputation.

If I may push the conversation along, there is an obvious first reaction.

Many view points I disagree with are defensible.

It is even possible to say, "sure I did it when I was younger but I learned my lesson" and honestly mean it.

Hypocrites are a special group of people though. Seems I find them in churches more often than elsewhere but the enviro-nazi's have a couple to be fair.

 

[OldLady]

I'm not sure there's anything here to argue, Xelor. Sure it's hypocritical, but ask me if I'm surprised.
One possibility is that the Senator was just being a good Republican and supporting a part of the party line that he didn't actually believe in. A lot of us have been in the predicament of doing that in our jobs now and then.
The other possibility is that being pro-life is very noble and praise worthy until it's your own life about to burn because of an inconvenient pregnancy. It OUGHT to make folks actually think about their stance, but I doubt it will.

As I pondered in a previous post, how would you feel if you learned that you father tried to get your mother to abort you just to protect his reputation.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, Joe. If you think I'm in anyway supporting the senator on this, you're wrong.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's not uncommon for people to do things that the "know" to be morally wrong when they feel they are in a desperate situation. First of all Tim Murphy is a hypocrite. He did wrong by having an affair even though he is married. Then he was willing to kill his own offspring to cover up the affair. Makes me wonder how the kid will feel about this when he/she grows up and learns daddy tried to get Mom to have an abortion.

In this situation Tim Murphy is scum.

Having said this, we are all sinners. So I should hold my stones.

He did wrong by having an affair even though he is married.

That he had an extramarital affair isn't something for which I'd chide him or anyone, provided they didn't hold themselves out as, or accept accolades for, being some sort of champion of "family values."

There are, after all, plenty of political strategists, lobbyists and PR professionals who will own the fact that they are mercenaries for the "issue" for which they advocate, and as such they are well paid to do as good a job as they can. A classic example of that is a defense attorney who argues a case well enough to secure a "not guilty" verdict for his client whom s/he knows is guilty. But those folks aren't pretending that they are doing anything other than being paid to advance a point of view.

Having said this, we are all sinners. So I should hold my stones.

Whether one has license to "throw stones" depends on at whom one is throwing them and how that person comported and represented themselves.

• The male pastor who condemns homosexual intimacy as an abomination and is then found having an affair with another man, is a dude at whom one can hurl "boulders."
• The politician who claims to have all the answers and be the greatest and then can't get a damn thing of note accomplished is fair game for all the "target practice."
• The neighbor who admits they just don't have concern or knack for gardening and whose yard reflects as much but is at kept "tidy" to the standard of the neighborhood minimum doesn't deserve to be chided or despised, for s/he has owned his fault.

That is, for me at least, one way to know when I'm dealing with a person of high integrity. They don't hold themselves out to be that which they are not, and they don't even attempt to put "lipstick on the pigs" that are their flaws.