If you support the "Right to Life" then aren't you ashamed of Bush and the Republican Party?

Question

"Right to Life" doesn't just pertain to stem cells and embrios. It also pertains to those embrios which have been born, including those children of lower and middle class families that can't afford health insurance for them, to preserve their lives and the quality of their lives, and can't afford to

America has just been challenged to support their Right to Life of these unfortunate children, and come up wanting. This is a failure of all Americans:

A failure of Democratic politicians to get the SChip bill passed

A failure of George Bush and Republican politicians to have the same compassion and generosity for needy children that they have shown for the wealthiest among us.

And a failure of all Americans to demand better of their government.

Why do some of us limit our respect for human life to that human life which has not yet left the womb?

This is a sad comment on American compassion, and on Christianity, We should all be ashamed that we've let this happen.

Answer 1

This has always been the case. Lawmakers want to ban abortion, which will make some poor woman, ( rich women can go where the procedure is legal) have a child she does not want, and can not support. Then, they will withhold, or give just the barest of assistance so that child is hungry, and has to go without the basic necessities, when this child acts out, they will put him into the judicial system, and finally, when he has hurt someone else, they will approve and even applaud sending him o the electric chair of the equivalent.
Why is so much time and money spent on unborn children instead of making life better for those that are already here?
Why are unborn children valued more than those who have been born.
Truth, you are buying a myth, my sister is a widow with three young boys, if something major happens, yes, they can go to an emergency room, but for regular well care and small things, unless other family members pay, they are out of luck.
The rhetoric you hear everyday isn't necessarily so.

Answer 2

in case you probably did not help President Bush, you've been anti American. With the starting up of the 'liberation' of Iraq, it become open season for each unethical and immoral organization prepare ever invented, and some new ones. It become in basic terms a remember of time till the living house of playing cards monetary gadget that become being held such as warfare spending and hypothesis contained in the oil markets collapsed. once the smart human beings realized Obama would certainly be president, they all started getting their money out of the markets because they knew the gravy prepare of income the Bush/Cheney administration presided over, become about to go back to an abrupt end. Bush/Cheney did each and everything the republican social gathering says they stand adversarial to and regardless of what they are literally asserting, supported them finished heartedly.

Answer 3

What does the Scip bill (which doesn't do a thing for poor children) have to do with the right to life? To blame Bush for this is a stretch even for a lib. I suggest you read the bill and find out just what was wrong with it before you make anymore statements about either Christianity or compassion.

Answer 4

You've bought into the myth. Low cost and free healthcare is already readily available to low income folks; they are simply not taking advantage of it for whatever reason. There are also many programs available to better the lives of the poor, but they need to seek them out. Yes, we have a right to life, but we also have a responsibility to make proper choices for ourselves and our families or face the consequences.

Answer 5

How many children have you adopted and or taking care of.

I am not saying i am in favor of this but i am also tired of people doing the talking and not doing the walking.
Christians do not judge.

Answer 6

Thank you for providing one more glimpse into the fevered mind of a liberal; a place where facts and reason have no home, but irrational emotion rules.

Answer 7

Right to life only counts before you are born, after that you are a dirty filthy welfare mooching liberal communist.

Answer 8

That is exactly the problem with pro-lifers, they refuse to pay for the health and welfare of the unwanted children. Bush is a pro-lifer but he is sending Americans to Iraq to get killed and vetoed children's health coverage.

Answer 9

Bush only using us pro-life people when he needs something. I never have considered him a conservative....I consider him a libertarian who only cares about money....America means nothing to that lot.

That said:
No to stem cell research
No to the death penalty
Yes to pro-life

No one has any right to interfere with another's NATURAL life.

Answer 10

The Truth Behind Bush's Healthcare Veto


Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies.
First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.
Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to re-examine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."
Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy.
It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage.
Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children?
Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government — the Constitution be damned — should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie.
What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it.
As another example, consider the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Who can forget the Democrats' (Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's) insistence that the future solvency of this entitlement was in such jeopardy that it must be placed off limits in a lock box?
Yet when President Bush attempted to reform this "third rail of politics," Democrats didn't just oppose the eminently sensible "partial privatization" aspect of his plan. They went further, completely reversing themselves and denying the system was in trouble at all.
Our old friend Sen. Harry Reid said, "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period . . . The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created . . . [Bush is] exaggerating the solvency."
This time they went to the other end of the chronological spectrum and used seniors as props.
Here again, they pretended to be intervening for the very group of people their demagogic opposition was sure to harm: future Social Security recipients. Demonstrating once more their contempt for the private sector and free markets, they tried to scare seniors into believing President Bush was imperiling Social Security with his very modest proposal to allow participants to invest a small portion of their own funds.
Bush's valiant effort was dead on arrival, and we kicked the ball down the road. This week, we were reminded of the consequences of this reckless procrastination when the first baby boomer of a projected 80 million, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, applied for her benefits. Despite the Democrats' denials in the name of protecting seniors –- most of whom are not yet seniors –- Social Security outlays are projected to exceed its receipts by 2041.
In the meantime, Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of compassion, is advancing new plans every other week to dole out yet more government money to various groups of voters, er, beneficiaries. These newly promised funds obviously will not be available to pay off maturing Social Security IOUs. But without the slightest self-consciousness, Hillary rails against President Bush for irresponsibly increasing the deficit — though the deficit is, in fact, decreasing. But don't you ever forget how much she cares about the children whose financial future she's mortgaging.
Just believe her and her colleagues that it is evil Republicans who are bankrupting our children with tax cuts that have grown the economy and shrunk the deficit.
Conservatives must be prepared in this campaign season to return to their own free-market principles and expose the liberals' compassion for the ruse it is