Starve a child, deny them education, deny them healthcare, freeze them in the winter, allow other children to purchase AK47s and shoot them, deny them housing and all the sudden it becomes a fiscal matter and not one of religion or fundamental rights.

The law may protect kids from being directly killed consequence free. However, indirectly, these good Christians support everything right up to that (spare the rod, spoil the child).

Edit: To respond to your edit, since you don't want to take the time to actually respond.

Reagan was good with the short quips, yet hardly someone you should look to for a "pro-life" attitude. He actively impeded AIDs research because "ewe, gay people". He has blood on his hands and invoking him in an argument about the sanctity of life is ridiculous.

Further, saying "Oh, let the churches feed the hungry". What would you do for the child of an atheist parent? What would you do if the church (like many of them do!) imposes strict morality clauses before aid is given. What if there is no church giving such aid in a community?

Why do you think there is child starvation in the united states? Because not enough kids know about their local churches and community centers?

It's also laughable that the same people who cheer on dumping 800 billion dollars into the most powerful military in the world are somehow afraid of the consequences of what happens when that money goes into a program to feed children. So what, the government is only scary when the money DOESN'T go towards guns? What kind of backwards thinking is that?