English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or the death of children, even the unborn? Then why do they denie them health care that could keep the ones alive that are already here?
They do not care about children. But to sound religious they have to be against something we can all agree on.
Since it affects so few voters. I mean how many unwed mothers who would have an abortion vote?
So how do they show they care about children by denieing them health care? Or letting uninsured people die with cancer because they cannot afford the treatments to enable them to live? Is being against abortion enough to make them the religous right?

2007-11-08 08:26:08 · 25 answers · asked by Steven 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

You ask what have I done? I have adopted two children who would have went into the foster care system.
And yes, I do entend on sending them to college. Their room looks like a toy store.

2007-11-08 10:59:39 · update #1

25 answers

Because they want to APPEAR sanctimonious and holy, not actually BE that way. Where the rubber meets the road, their kind hearts just seem to wither right up, don't they?
Yeah, I have and continue to help people of all walks of life. I had a single homeless mom living in my home. I've paid for childcare for other women, transportation, food, diapers, you name it. I support the struggle they have chosen to face. I also support their right to choose.
If people really believe everyone with a job can afford health care, you are stark raving mad! If you think everyone who needs it is already covered, you are equally delusional. Try living down here in the real world with us working class folks. It isn't pretty.

2007-11-08 09:28:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Do you really think having something more than Medicaid, or Medicare will actually get kids into doctor offices? Most people who cannot afford insurance, already can have their children covered by government programs. As for those who are working, they should be making sure the insurance is there for their children. I would ask them why they do not have it. Also in many cities there are clinics that offer services at reduced rates based on income, why do we really need another health plan paid for by those with jobs to cover more people who do not think insurance is important. As for women having abortions not voting, where did you find these statistics? They have as much right to be out there voting as any other citizen. It is not that anyone wishes to deny children health care, but they want to make those who could afford it to supply it, why make everyone pay for insurance for those who can pay for it themselves. Those without insurance as adults who cannot afford treatment can sometimes get assistance from agencies in their community, and do you really think the government would provide treatment any faster to the clients? Do you really want the government to have the final say when it comes to that treatment? Just think how many times they will say, Oh sorry, your too old, the illness is too advanced, or come up with another excuse to not provide treatment? Actually, the subject of abortion, as given as a debate subject for candidates, is not about the women who would have an abortion, but for all those who believe it is wrong, and that would count for a large number of voters.

2007-11-08 08:43:40 · answer #2 · answered by julvrug 7 · 0 1

You are misinformed. There is already a children's health care program in place. The veto was against the expansion of the program into household with incomes that are not poor. I believe the expansion of the program would cover up to 3 children under a family income up to 81,000/year.

2007-11-08 08:34:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It's pretty clear you're trying to make a statement, rather than ask a question.

Nobody is DENYING children healthcare. Nobody passed a law saying "children cannot have healthcare".

What happened is that they did not pass a bill that would have created a red-tape bureaucracy monster, that would have enlarged the welfare state and taken us one step closer to being a socialist nation.

Nobody is denying anybody anything. You are trying to make it sound like just because I didn't pay for someone's doctor bills from my own pocket, I am guilty of murder.

Do more research on what is REALLY happening, instead of just spouting half-baked rhetoric that is few to you by the talking heads in the news media who have an agenda and are quite biased..

2007-11-08 08:33:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The older i'm getting, the fewer pastime I surely have in politics. i'm with Jesus, and He evidently reported that His kingdom replace into no longer of this international. even nonetheless, I surely have never ever voted Republican. I see George Bush as a sorry excuse for a pacesetter. I do in simple terms no longer ensue to think of the Democrats are lots extra suitable the two. i'm reminded of a quote from Tolkien: "i'm no longer altogether on anybody's facet, via fact no one is altogether on my facet."

2016-10-01 22:10:19 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

THERE IS NO HUMAN / SOUL LIFE IN THE WOMB!!!PERIOD!!! Read Gen. 2:7: the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and BREATHED into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE, and the MAN became a LIVING BEING.

[a.] Genesis 2:7 The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground ( adamah it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20).

Until God "Breathes (Hebrew is Nuchshamah for 'Breath of Life / Human / Soul Life') Human / Soul Life into each of Us, We do Not exist! Don't let Politicians Run Ur Life, that's reserved for the Holy Spirit! Abortion is Only a Womans Issue with her Dr. & Not Religions' or Governments' BUSINESS!!! PERIOD!!! John

2007-11-08 08:53:17 · answer #6 · answered by moosemose 5 · 2 1

If unwed mothers had jobs they could have health care. Anyone can buy insurance.
Also, unwed mothers don't vote??!!! That would be their problem. Anyone who doesn't vote isn't taking advantage of their rights.

You are also incorrect in equating Republicans=Religious right.
This is a fallacy the GOP has used to get votes in the past. We're on to them.

2007-11-08 08:39:22 · answer #7 · answered by flesh 3 · 0 2

Apparently to many of these people, once the baby is out of the womb it no longer needs to be protected or cared for.

I believe it is more about restricting other people's rights and forcing their own morals on others than it is about caring for children.

2007-11-08 08:29:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anlina S 3 · 5 0

So much of what Republicans say is made up jargon and spinning it's hard to know what they're saying. It only annoys me when the media joins in framing debates in Republican/speak.

2007-11-08 08:29:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Their priorities are messed up.They want children to be born.But God forbid if they help keep those children healthy with a universal health system to keep those kids healthy.

I can see the quotes now...

"God forbids murder.Abortion is murder."

"God wants us to fend for ourselves.Our glory is best suited to God when we work for what we have.If children are sick they should work to pay for their health-care so that they can get better.That is what Jesus would want."

I just made those quotes up.But where do you think I have heard those kinds of statements?From conservative Republican Christians.

2007-11-08 08:33:33 · answer #10 · answered by Demopublican 6 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers