In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court
legalized abortion nationwide.
The decision is called Roe vs Wade, and
those who defend it are known as RoeBots.
This is how they think...
*Robot Voice*
Few issues illustrate the abysmal 
immorality of the pro-choice mindset
better than arguments like this.
To see that,
imagine that the two-year-old daughter of 
a poor family falls into an abandoned well.
Authorities quickly calculate that a 
funeral is far cheaper than a rescue,
and even if this girl survives, she will probably
be on welfare for the rest of her life anyway.
So they decide that the financially responsible
thing to do is just flood the well with water.
Then, once the child has drowned,
her corpse will float to the top where 
it can be scooped up and buried.
And with that, the taxpayers
will have saved a bundle.
Now that is obviously a monstrous idea,
but it is exactly the same 
as telling poor women
that if they are willing to 
have their children killed,
we are willing to pick up the tab because in 
the long run it will save the rest of us money.
However, if America is serious about 
having a social policy based on the concept
that it’s cheaper to execute
a child than support one,
then we should start encouraging poor families
to not only kill their unborn children
but their born children as well.
Remember, the guiding principle behind 
this pro-choice argument is saving money.
So if we are willing to 
ignore the biological fact
that the unborn children of the 
poor are living human beings,
why should we care that their born 
children are living human beings?
Thanks for watching!
