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*
To begin with, there are 
a lot of pro-life people
– including me – who strongly 
oppose the death penalty.
In fact, my experience has been that there
is more opposition to the death penalty inside
the pro-life movement than there is 
in the general American population.
However, those who support the 
death penalty are not disqualified
from legitimately claiming to be pro-life.
There is no inconsistency in saying that 
convicted murderers should be executed
but innocent babies should not be.
It is also interesting to note that the pro-choice
crowd claims that opposing abortion
while supporting the death 
penalty is inconsistent,
but supporting abortion while opposing 
the death penalty is perfectly logical.
In fact, they often refer to 
that position as enlightened.
An example of this 
hypocrisy was seen in 2011
when the governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, signed 
a bill ending the death penalty in that state,
citing concerns that Illinois might 
execute someone who's innocent.
Of course, liberals across America
– many of them Quinn’s 
fellow abortion apologists –
immediately lauded his 
action, calling him a hero,
and demanding that other 
governors immediately follow suit.
The question is, why are these 
people so eager to defend
those on death row who may be innocent
while being totally comfortable with 
slaughtering millions of human beings
in the womb who are 
undeniably innocent?
Let’s also remember that 
every person on death row
was given a trial and an appeals 
process that could have taken decades.
But for the unborn, there is no trial.
No judge, no jury, no appeal, 
and no stay of execution.
Thanks for watching!
