Dr. V on the consistency of being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty

See Dr. V's Substack here. Excerpt:

To apply a principle consistently is to apply it to all like cases in a like manner. So if the principle is to cherish, value, uphold human life, then perhaps their thought is that to apply this principle to the unborn but not to certain criminals is to apply it inconsistently. “How can you oppose the killing of the unborn, when you favor the killing of certain criminals? Be consistent!”

The answer to this should be obvious. The cases are deeply dissimilar. The unborn are all innocent while most criminals are not. (That some are wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, and wrongly deemed criminals by the law is irrelevant.) The difference between the unborn and criminals is a difference that makes a moral difference; it is a difference that justifies a difference in treatment. No doubt principles should be applied to like cases in a like manner. But there is no inconsistency in refusing to apply a principle to cases that are relevantly dissimilar.

One who is ‘pro-life’ need not hold the absurd view that in no circumstances may human life be taken. For surely there are circumstances in which it is morally permissible, and perhaps even morally obligatory, to take human life. Self-defense is one case, just war is another, capital punishment is a third, and suicide might well be a fourth. Indeed, it precisely because one is pro-life that one will defend oneself and others from murderers using means up to and including the talking of their lives!

This is all so obvious that I am astonished that people routinely repeat the charge that it is inconsistent to support both a right to life for the unborn and the death penalty.

Did you spot the comma error in the first paragraph?