From T.S.Orama (I post this hoping you don't mind.)Ono, I'm sorry you have been hurt by the cheerleading of some conservative Catholics like myself.


Thanks for the sentiment, but cheerleading is allowed. My posts reflect my interest in the apparent overlap between conservative Catholics and political conservatism. I've always thought that Catholics were, for the most part, pro-life democrats. Now I think I think differently. And the question for that interests me is the root of the conservatism. Are Catholic conservatives, as most are in St. Blogs, conservative because of the political leanings or are they conservative because of Catholic social values. Wherein does the conservatism lie. I think it is the fomer.


I HOPE what motivates me is the desire not to see our nation become further secularized. James Carville himself said that the problem with the Democrat Party is that they are afraid of religion. This tends to make me afraid of the Democratic Party.

The leaders act that way, but they don't hesitate to exploit religious situations. For instance, they'll go to black churches to get out the vote. But like every party there is a fight for the heart of the party.


You ask - if you are a battered woman or a senior needing prescription drugs, do you vote on the issue of abortion? That is a great question! In fact, that is THE question, since what that vote says about that person will
speak volumes. For a battered woman or a senior needing prescription drugs to vote for a pro-life candidate and risk their own welfare is the most beatiful thing imaginable. They are putting themselves second. They are
recognizing the greater good though ir eyes and bellys tell them something different. Their place in heaven will be higher than ours! Would I blame them for voting in their self-interest? No. But is it beautiful?

I don't disagree that it would be beautiful, what I am interesting in establishing is that they would not be wrong to vote for the candidate who would alleviate their concerns regardless of stance on abortion.

As far as single-issue voting in general, wasn't that the correct thing to do during the Antebellum years in this country? Didn't the issue of slavery rightly dwarf all other issues like how to apportion tax dollars?

Single-issue voting is not wrong. What I am wary of is if I am told that that single issue must be and always be on the abortion question and that that is the only legitimate Catholic option.

I think the key point is whether one makes a distinction between a 7-yr old and an embryo. You believe there is a distinction and that does make all the difference. Given that, I can understand why you are not a single-issue
voter on abortion. On the face of it, comparing the two is ridiculous. Everything tells us that there is a huge difference. It is only with the eyes of faith that the embryo has an immortal soul. It is ridiculous in the
eyes of the world. But I believe in all that "silly" stuff, or at least pray that I do!

I don't think I have said that there is a difference between an embryo or a seven yearl old. What I say is that there is a continuum of life between the unborn and the born, so concern for welfare of human life is not restricted to the unborn. The starvation of a two year old is just as dreadful in God's eyes and should be in our's. So it, in my view, is not consistent ethic of life to not show as much dedication to the cause of the defensless two year old. My point is that it is not the ideology that matters but the people. I am not pro-life because it is a cause, it is the concern for a person. That same concern for people is what drives equal concern in other issues at all stages of life. James 1:26-27, one of my favorite verses, points out that true religion in the eyes of God is about taking care of the widows and orphans, in this day and age, we would add the unborn, but the addition of the unborn does not and cannot diminish in any way the concern for oppresed widows and orphans. It is all about people. There is no such thing as life, life does sleep, eat, breathe, get sick, and die, people live. The word "life" may be the problem because we are no longer dealing with people but a metaphysical concept "life".

Dylan had a post about Pro-life Nazi statement I made. I wasn't able to read his post in full detail, but I will say this, the example was a possible hypothetical. The point is that you could have a Nazi type, white supremacist, wants to destroy other races in the worst way, etc., and that person could be anti-abortion. If this person was a candidate would you vote for that person based on the pro-life issue? I imagine the answer is no. This has nothing to do with republican or democrat. The point is about voting indiscriminately on an issue regardless of candidate or any other considerations. I think far too much is being made about the Pro-life Nazi. In fact I would agree that such a term may be incoherent, but for similar reasons that I argue that it is inconsistent to be concerned for the unborn and that concern tapers off in regard to the born.