>A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children

This is the appeal to emotion. There's no argument that connects those two things. As I said in another discussion in this thread, you may as well couch this decision in terms of

A. Saving children's lives is preferable to not.

B. Voting Republican saves more children's lives.

And then just arguing that saying "vote Republican to save children's lives" is an effective way to convince people to vote Republican. The inference being that voting Republican is the way to save children's lives.