From Trump Tower To Papal Glower…

Vatican City: Pope Francis urged US President Donald Trump to be a peacemaker and gave him a copy of his encyclical on climate change at their first meeting on Wednesday, after the two men exchanged sharp words last year.   Click here to read rest of this report

 

 

Comment:

Pity Donald Trump didn’t hand the Pope back his “climate” encyclical and tell him what, precisely, to do with it.  But not until he’d expressed a very clear view about the cold climate in the Vatican; reading that report of the visit of Donald Trump to the Vatican,  doesn’t it seem that the Pope has insulted Trump?  Grins for Obama and  glowers for Trump?  Tells its own story.  Like, says it all when a Protestant president is more pro-life and more polite than a pope.  Does it not?  Not to mention the cheek of it, to put peacemaking onto the shoulders of the new President of the USA when he, Pope Francis, holds the key to world peace if only he would obey Our Lady of Fatima and consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.  Some nerve, then…

Fatima, the Left, and the Coming Terror

Latest Fatima Center E-Newsletter

“Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie.”
– Maximilien Robespierre, 1794


The Rage of the Left and the Coming Terror

In 1989, France marked the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. It was a strained celebration, for even its most ardent apologists were compelled to admit the bloody and sordid nature of much that the Revolution encompassed. The guillotine remains its most enduring symbol.

The revolutionary leaders called for freedom, equality and brotherhood, and then proceeded to kill anyone deemed to stand in the way of these noble ideals, eventually murdering one another in the paroxysm of a brutal power struggle. (See:  “The 14 Bloodiest, Most Brutally Horrific Moments of the French Revolution”.)

In 1989, Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev went to Paris to participate in the bicentennial celebration and said, “The spirit of the French Revolution has always been present in the social life of our country.” As columnist Charles Krauthammer then observed: “Few attempts at ingratiation have been more true or more damning.” 

The bloodbath and horrors of communism have much in common with the bloodbath and horrors of what is now called “The Terror.” The Bolsheviks and the French Revolutionaries both relied on political assassination, domestic spying, denunciations and imprisonments, show trials and the criminalization of all dissent. Both terrorized the populace while committing their crimes in the name of “the People.” Tyrants always claim a democratic mandate.

 

The French Revolution’s Committee for Public Safety condemned to death almost 17,000 people in one year. (See:  “Reign of Terror”.)  This is a negligible body count when laid against the tens of millions that have been sacrificed on the altar of communism. We prefer to think that men such as Robespierre and Stalin are creatures of bygone eras and that conditions no longer allow for such horrors to be perpetrated. Perhaps, we should think again.

The Pope and the Antifa

Pope Francis has been called the new leader of the global Left. He has not demurred from the acclimation. He has been flatteringly featured in publications that can hardly be considered supportive of Catholic teaching, such as Rolling Stone. He has been praised by leaders of the pro-abortion movement, such as Hillary Clinton. Those who favor unrestricted Muslim immigration in the West and open borders feel they have a friend in Francis, and they are seldom disappointed.

But those who favor traditional Church teaching, including the indissolubility of marriage and the norms for receiving the sacraments, have felt the sting of the Pope’s rebuke and been subjected to personal insult. He does not answer dubia — questions concerning his positions; he denigrates the questioners. The ad hominem attack is his default mode. (See:  “Now Francis Targets ‘Rigid’ Youth: But what does “rigid” mean? And why does Francis never tell us?”.)

 Pope Francis acts more like a politician courting a constituency than the Vicar of Christ propagating a timeless teaching (See:  “An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope). His tactics are those of a candidate trying to undermine his opponent by character assassination. Missing from the voluminous homilies, speeches, interviews and press conferences of this pontiff is reasoned argument for his positions. (See:  “The Laity Roar While the Cardinals Meow: The Catastrophe that is Amoris Laetitia.) He relies on caricature, invective and vague “gospel” imperatives, which have an elasticity that can be adapted to most any circumstance.

Francis denounces “populism” as dangerous and fascistic whenever he disagrees with the “people.” Otherwise, he defends popular fashions in morals and ideology, often opposing the “living” reality of the times to the outmoded intransigence of traditional doctrine. He is with you so long as you are with him. We have never had a Pope who is so divorced from the normal exercise of his office and so eager for the approbation of the ruling classes, that is, the globalist Left. (See:  “For 2017 More of the Same: Leftist Politics Wrapped in the Language of Catholic Piety”.)

Meanwhile, the Left with which the Pope has aligned himself has suffered some setbacks, and it is not taking them well. Donald Trump has won the presidency of the United States; a “conservative” has been appointed to the Supreme Court. The unholy alliance of the “deep state” with its political masters is being exposed. The intelligence community is now known to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Democrats still control the media, but are hemorrhaging popular support. They appear more and more like generals without an army.

In Europe, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. French nationalism is rising. Poland and Hungary are resisting Muslim immigration. And the narrative of current events is no longer tightly controlled by the propaganda arm of globalism — that is, the major news outlets — but is coming into public view, in factual and unedited form, from a growing number of information sites via the Web.

The Left has not, until recently, been called upon to defend itself. The ruling elites were protected from hard questioning by a supportive media that vilified anyone who subjected their positions to scrutiny. The media, like the Pope, resorts to the ad hominem attack as a matter of course. But their credibility is greatly diminished and the media’s fairness and accuracy are now being subjected to a scrutiny they have never before had to face. The control of the Left, which appeared so formidable for so long, is now unravelling.

The late John Vennari once memorably said that logic and liberalism cannot co-exist in the same head. Traced to its principle, a liberal position tends to fall apart from lack of coherence, internal contradiction or a collision with obvious facts. That Islam is a “Religion of Peace” is an example of a patently absurd liberal position; yet, every globalist, from George Bush to Angela Merkel to Pope Francis, has repeated this absurdity with the apparent expectation that it will be believed — or that people will fear to contradict the claim because the media will discredit and destroy anyone who dissents. (See:  “America Magazine Frets over Catholics’ Lack of Love for Islam”.) Facts, for the Left, are irrelevant. It is the narrative that is important, and the narrative can be shaped to suit the needs of the moment.

The Left is demonic in that its position is that of Lucifer: it wants to usurp the prerogatives of the Creator and refashion the world according to its likes and dislikes. It reverses Our Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and says, “Not Thy will, but mine be done.”  And it uses whatever tool is at hand to smash the natural order that stands in its way. Muslim immigration is just a tool for smashing what remains of European Christian culture. Transgenderism is a tool for smashing what remains of traditional sexual morality. Entitlement programs are a tool for smashing what remains of personal self-reliance. And all of this destruction is done in the name of compassion, of mercy. To oppose globalism is to be mean, bigoted, un-Christian. (See:  “Pope Francis Suggests Donald Trump Is ‘Not Christian’”.) It is to build walls instead of bridges. It is to invite finger wagging and invective from the Pope.

And while the Pope is vilifying the Left’s opponents daily at the Casa Santa Marta, mobs of masked “protesters” are appearing in cities across America and Europe. They are called the Antifa – for anti-fascists. It is a bit of Orwellian Newspeak from the Left’s Ministry of Truth. The Antifa disguise their faces, shout obscenities, beat people up, hurl trash cans through windows, set cars on fire, block traffic and shout down anyone who would say anything with which they disagree. They oppose free speech, freedom of assembly for any group they dislike, and are prepared to use violence if they don’t get what they want. The Antifa are, in short, fascists. (See:  “What is ‘Antifa’? And why is the media so reluctant to expose it?”.)

In Berkeley, they enjoy the protection of the University administration, the mayor and the police. (See:  “WOW! BERKELEY MAYOR Who Allegedly Told Police To ‘Stand Down’ Is Part Of Antifa Terrorist Facebook Group”.) We are asked to believe that the police force is no match for this rabble and therefore cannot guarantee the physical safety of conservative speakers, such as Ann Coulter. How stupid does the Left think the public is? There is collusion on a growing scale between the Left, the street mobs they incite and direct and the parts of the government they still control. That the Left is turning to orchestrated violence is a sign of things to come. If they cannot succeed through electoral politics, they will try to assert their will through social disruption, through fear, and then blame the chaos and bloodshed on the victims, the so-called fascists who had to be opposed for the sake of freedom and justice.

Just how far will the Left go to regain the power they have temporarily lost? This remains to be seen. One thing is apparent, however: civil discourse is no longer on the table. This is a struggle for raw power in which every outrage against decency is being justified in the name of “saving our democracy.” Network television programs now feature obscene rants against Trump and Republicans as a matter of course. The foulest language and fiercest hatred is countenanced as “entertainment.” It appears probable that the situation will only grow worse, for recent history shows that once the bar of decency has been lowered, it is never raised again. We can only descend at this point to ever more repulsive and brutish behavior on the part of the media in support of the Left.

 

The Long View and What We Can Expect

There is a professor in Berkeley named George Lakoff. He specializes in something called “cognitive linguistics.” Lakoff has long aspired to a role in politics, having offered his services to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He is now counseling the Left on how it should regroup in light of the Trump victory. What he urges is what he calls “framing” the debate through the use of metaphors — that is, inventing appealing names for repellent things. (See:  “Moral Politics (book)”.)

His premise is that of the elite class: most people are too stupid to know what is in their best interest. The direction of their lives is best left in the hands of their intellectual and moral superiors, i.e. Lakoff and the Left. Hobbled by a nominal democracy, however, the smart people are compelled to manipulate the obtuse proletariat. Lakoff says this can best be done by using words that bypass reason and reach the unconscious, for reason is wasted on the masses. (See:  “The Framing Wars”.)

Conservatives supposedly believe in what Lakoff calls the “Strict Father” model of the family, which he describes as authoritarian and cruel; it is opposed to the goodness and light of what he calls the “nurturant parent” model, favored by the benevolent Left. Lakoff wants the Left to use language to move people from the authoritarian model of the family to the nurturant parent model. But Lakoff’s strategy requires patience. It is also seen by some on the Left as academic theorizing that may or may not hold good in the real world. Meanwhile, the Left is opting for the fascism of the Antifa. It is trying to shut down the opposition through suppressing free speech.  But Lakoff’s approach may also be tried.

Lakoff wants Democrats to stop using terms such as “federal regulations” and to talk instead about “protections.” He suggests the word “taxes” be replaced by the word “investments.” The media is always amenable to offering what help it can to “progressives,” for whom Lakoff is a self-appointed strategist, so we are likely to hear more linguistic legerdemain in the near future. The Associated Press Style Book has long used its power to push the Left’s agenda. The AP forbids the use of “pro-life” and “pro-abortion,” allowing only the term “pro-choice.” Most every newspaper and news outlet uses the AP as its usage guide. The media are likely to become the linguistic arm of the Antifa.

We should be alert to the fact that the Left is regrouping and a new language is being invented for presenting its agenda. Meanwhile, we can expect the street violence and the media assault against Trump to continue unabated. The public may tire of the turmoil and decide that Trump is too divisive a figure, a claim which the media will amplify in every way as the next election cycle approaches. If and when the Left manages to defeat its opposition, it will exercise power with an unprecedented ruthlessness. It has already discarded civil discourse and adopted the position that anyone who opposes them does not deserve a hearing, as their opponents are presumed to be motivated by racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious bigotry and consummate evil and stupidity of every description.

Their opponents are deemed hateful, and why should hateful people be given any quarter? Why should such deplorables be allowed to speak, or even exist? The brigades of the Antifa will be let loose, aided by all the apparatus of the government and media. The spirit of Robespierre, the patron saint of the Left, will be triumphant. How bloody will it get? It is beyond present imagination, for we find it difficult to accept possibilities that are deeply repugnant to us. But we have history as a guide.

All of the above takes into account only the human factors that shape events. There is the overarching power of Providence that can intervene at any time in unforeseen ways. We have a Pope who has sided with the Left and is trying to convince, even compel, Catholics to support the globalist agenda. The doctrinal patrimony of the Catholic Church is endangered by Francis’ alliances. No human power can effectively oppose his politicization of the Faith. Where do we turn?

Our Lady of Fatima said, “Only I can help you.” Perhaps the time is coming when the whole world will realize the truth of Her words.

Comments invited…

Why Does Media Love To Hate Trump?

I’m astonished at the ongoing and persistently nasty attacks on President Donald Trump which are still dominating the news here in the UK. The protest led by so-called celebrities is just the latest manifestation of what is clearly a diabolical rage against this man, democratically elected and saying and doing nothing that he didn’t promise in his campaign. The American people voted for him in full knowledge of his ideas and plans, according to their electoral system. What makes these “celebrities” think we care a toss about what they think, anyway? They’re as out of touch with the reality of life for ordinary people as are the professional politicians. Click here for an example and note that Jodie Foster et al take plenty of care to keep their own home borders safe and secure. They pay big money to keep intruders out of their personal patch, while purporting not to care tuppence about the security of their national borders. I say “purporting” because, personally, I find it difficult to believe that any of them seriously object to Mexican drug dealers and criminals being obstructed in their attempts to cross the border into the USA.  

In any case, Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border was really nothing new; even on the UK TV news channels in recent days there has been an admission (tucked away in their oceans of wordage mocking the Trump presidency) that there are already stretches of wall and fencing on the Mexican border, dating back years, and placed there by previous Presidents of the USA;  presumably they were as concerned as Trump about the number of illegal immigrants, not to mention drug dealers and other criminals, entering the country. So, the wall is clearly just an excuse, a stick with which to beat Donald Trump.  But why?   

Obviously, he is not perfect – no more “perfect” than any other world leader, or any previous president. So, why the appalling viciousness that is being served up in an undisguised campaign to force Donald Trump out of office? One commentator on the Oscar protests said on this morning’s Sky News (review of the papers) programme that if these same celebrities were expressing concern about Islamist terrorism, about which people ARE worried, there would be howls of derision [from the same audience cheering the attacks on their democratically elected President]. Exactly. So, what IS going on – see if you can spot the answer in the video below…

Comments invited…

Defend Donald – Sign Counter-Petition

MORE than 1.6 million Britons have signed a petition calling for Donald Trump’s state visit to be cancelled. But will it stop the new US President coming to the UK?  Click here to read more

There’s now a counter petition – I’ve signed it and hope you will, too.  Click here to sign or click on the image to reach the petition…

trump-counter-petition

The media in the UK is 100% agin Donald Trump.  The hatred of him coming from TV news broadcasts is palpable.

But why?  IS it because he is seeking to improve security by imposing temporary restrictions – his spokesperson insists there is no “ban” and only a very small number of people have been detained as part of an attempt to review security. So, what’s really going on here? 

Comments invited…

 

 

 

Political Correctness: Mission Impossible?

Click on image to read entire report.
“There was one performance this year that stunned me,” [said Meryl Streep] without naming Mr Trump.
“It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective, and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth.”

“It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back.”It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can’t get it out of my head because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.”

Streep was referring to a rally in South Carolina in November 2015 when Mr Trump jerked his arms in front of his body as he made fun of Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times journalist who has a congenital joint condition.  Source 

Comment: 

I’m puzzled.

Although I think Donald Trump was wrong to mimic the disabled journalist as he did, until the furore broke around the story, I thought I was in a minority.  Let me explain…

The “experts” have been arguing for years now, that disabled children, and children with learning difficulties, are better served by attending mainstream schools. They – and disabled adults – want to be, and ought to be, treated the same as everyone else. Don’t patronise them, we’re told. Nobody protects the able-bodied from impersonators and me, moi, myself and I get the mickey taken regularly on the basis that we’re all hard of hearing.  In my workplace, colleagues in corridors would stop me dead in my tracks to mouth words, no sound, pretending to speak to me and I, mad fool that I am, not seeing the opportunities to file discrimination lawsuits, would laugh at their antics. 

Most of us think nothing of mimicking others, or laughing when others are mimicked and so – correct me if I’m wrong here – according to the PC logic, there ought not to be any special consideration given to the disabled. That’s, I repeat, according to the Theory of Political Correctness. 

I wasn’t impressed at all with Donald Trump’s impersonation of the journalist – not at all.  It was in very poor taste and not remotely funny;  a mimic is meant to entertain and that one manifestly didn’t cut the mustard.  I do the odd bit of mimicking myself and I think – in all humility – that I’d be in line for a Hollywood award ahead of Trump based on his very unfunny mimic of the New York Times journalist. 

So, this discussion isn’t about whether or not Donald Trump was right to mimic the journalist – I’m sure we all agree it will not go down in history as his most glorious hour.  So, (although we’re not daft – we know that this incident has been dredged up from 2015 and is being hyped to death because the allegedly liberal elite are fizzing that Hillary lost to Trump) the core question at the heart of this thread is this: is it possible for any of us to ever keep on the right side of the new – and getting newer by the nano-second – PC rules?   

USA: Will Donald Trump Hillary?

animatedflagusaThe Church has established Catholic principles of voting and we  have always been exhorted to use our vote carefully, but definitely to vote.  Click here to read a very good article on this subject.

However, note the following editorial update, September 2016:  

“…In the past 9 years since this article was penned by Fr. Peter Scott, the political landscape of the United States has degraded at an alarming rate. Democrats who claimed to uphold the sanctity of marriage at the time this article was written have now all but unanimously changed course. Even Republicans who, for the most part, could be counted on to provide basic Christian values, have begun to embrace these sins against nature, and many are supporting abortion under certain circumstances. It is in this current climate that we wish to explicitly clarify what Fr. Scott implied above – in a political contest or election where both / all candidates support objectively evil legislation, abstaining from the voting process, or leaving sections of a ballot blank, would be perfectly acceptable and even encouraged.

Comment:

How might an American Catholic use his/her vote in the forthcoming national Election, to avoid displeasing God?

WILL Donald Trump Hillary, or will the notoriously pro-abortion-up-to-birth Mrs Clinton trump Donald?

Is it unthinkable that any Catholic would vote for Hillary Clinton?  Indeed, is it possible for a conscientious Catholic to support either candidate?   

donaldtrumphillaryclinton

Trump: Are Pro-Lifers Inconsistent?

I hesitate to wade into the fever swamp that has arisen over the past few days over the question of whether women who have abortions should face prosecution. (A question that is, as a friend suggested to me earlier this morning, the “ultimate gotcha question” for abortion advocates to pose to politicians running on a pro-life platform.)      animatedteacher2

 

And yet…and yet

I’ve made no secret that I have serious problems with the way the pro-life movement handles certain aspects of the decades-long war. I’ve written about the problem with abortion politics, and the need for us to demand, unequivocally, intellectual honesty (read: scientific truth) about abortion. In 2015, I went to the March for Life and interviewed marchers on the street about why they still come after 42 years with no major successes. I keep trying to understand what we’re doing wrong. I keep trying to understand why we seek a political solution to an inherently moral problem.

And now pro-lifers are up in arms because, when pressed repeatedly by Chris Matthews, Donald Trump said that women who seek abortions should face “some form of punishment.”

This isn’t a post about Donald Trump. It’s a post about us. About how we think, about how we approach this topic, about why we fail to win even the debates over abortion, which should be a slam dunk.

You see, fellow pro-lifers, we have very little credibility. We say abortion is murder, but then we often actlike it isn’t.

In today’s world, it’s almost impossible not to know someone who has had an abortion, or helped someone else get one. Many of us even have these people among our circle of loved ones. Family members. Friends. We live with the knowledge of this horror marring the past of those closest to us. That abortion is a sin of murder is indisputable. That murder is (in a civic sense) a crime is also indisputable.

But when someone that such a crime should be punished, the very loudest voices arguing that abortion is a crime turn their ire on the person saying it.

The fog of cognitive dissonance we have had to live with for over 40 years on this issue no doubt mitigates individual culpability to a degree. But it is neither illogical nor absurd to suggest that, in the event that abortion were outlawed, there should be some criminal penalty levied against the mother who seeks one.

I’m not motivated at all to prosecute all the hurt, even broken women, who have been led into this error by force or deception. But jurisprudence demands that we be consistent, not arbitrary. And the reason this issue is being discussed right now was a question of jurisprudence – and policy moving forward.

The pro-life movement is nauseatingly dishonest when it comes to certain issues. Think of all the pro-lifers who admit exceptions in the case of rape and incest.

Really? So it’s murder except when it reaches a certain level of discomfort? Tell me more.

There are not a few women who are victims of abortion, flat out — coerced into an action they want no part of. There are others who are both perpetrator AND victim — women who make the choice freely, but are deeply conflicted over it, and who likely would not make such a terrible choice if it were not so readily available, or if they knew they had better options. And there are some who, as hard as it is to understand, are callous and bloodthirsty. These last are proud of the abortions they’ve had.

This spectrum, like any human action, has a diverse set of factors that must be taken into account when assessing culpability, both morally and legally. Not least is the near-total societal approval for this heinous act.

But if a day came when abortion was again outlawed, such circumstances would require the assessment of criminal penalties for those found guilty of what would then be a criminal violation of the law. I’m not anticipating or arguing for Nuremberg trials for past abortions here. That would be impossible and unwise. I’m talking about the fact that a broken law necessitates consequences — for the purposes of restitution, rehabilitation, or simply the satisfaction of justice. Even addicts, who may well have a morally limited freedom because of their addiction, are still arrested and prosecuted when caught using illegal substances.

We have to make sense in how we approach this. Nobody should be shouted down for bringing the logical consequences of a desired change in the law on abortion to the table — least of all those who are advocating for that very change to the law. I understand that there are many emotions involved, and not a few such advocates are too close to this issue for comfort, having been guilty at some point in their lives of abortion themselves.

But these emotions cloud our logic, and mar our credibility as advocates for the unborn. We must not allow this to happen. It’s incredibly damaging to the cause.  Source

But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder... (Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae #58

But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder…   (Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae #58)

 

Comment:

Like the author of the blog 1P5, I do not want this thread to be hijacked into a discussion on the controversial American politician Donald Trump. He serves our purpose only by providing a context for us in which to consider the apparent inconsistency of the pro-life movement, which seeks to repeal a law legalising abortion, only to argue that it is one class of murder which should not be punishable by law. 

Doesn’t make sense – does it?  Or does it?