I see Right to Life more as a Right to Birth. The movement is more interested in ensuring that all children, under all circumstances, are born. Peaked interest seems to lie only from the moment of conception to the second of birth and first breath... after that, the fervor of caring for this child that was such a vehement topic completely dies off.

Where is Right to Life when it comes to ensuring that unwanted pregnancy does not occur. Abstinancy is not a complete viable option. Yes it is favorable, but REALISTICALLY, how many young adults has it dissuaded from early sexual practices versus those that just do it anyway. You have to make a net of options, so that when one option fails, another takes its place. Where abstinancy fails, sex education must step in. Don't want a sexually transmitted disease or an unwanted pregnancy, use a condom, get on birth control, use other options. You aren't promoting sexual behavior by making sure your people know about sexual education, you are promoting safety, responsibility. Wake up.

Where is Right to Life after a child is born. Adoption laws in the United States are largely a bundle of snares and hurdles the likes of which are so disheartening that a good many couples try to go elsewhere to adopt children. Where is Right to Life when a gay couple tries to adopt a child into their family? How about cross-racial adoption roadblocks? A stable family is preferable to State wardship being shuttled from foster to foster. Yet again, other issues encroach upon the possible stable raising of a child. Why is there a stigma against adoption as an option, why must everyone HAVE a child of their own flesh and blood... because we are bombarded with it nonstop.

Where is the restructuring of the foster system to ensure that families stay together... that SIBLINGS stay together when moved out of a bad situation with their birth family... that fosters are correctly trained and motivated to do the right thing for their charges rather than just taking a State check every month. Where is the vehement and righteous indignation for the children then?

Why isn't there a federal sanctuary law for unwanted children (ie. baby's may be surrendered at a police station, fire station, hospital by a mother with no questions asked).

Where is Right to Life when so many children live in poverty without proper healthcare.

I do not condone abortion. I do however, dislike the zealous tunnel vision of religion constricting this topic down to such a seemingly 'easy' moral decision. This isn't about religion. Responsibility for life doesn't end at birth, it continues throughout the child's life. Should these parents be unable to provide for the child and the child enters the 'system', it is all of our responsibilities to ensure that the child is properly provided for and taught... not mangled in a system like a piece of meat until the age of majority.