A survey - some clever scribe at Queen's Park observed - gets the kind of answers that the people paying for it want it to get. And how, dear readers, is that done? By the way that the questions are phrased by the payer. For example a survey that asked: "Should a woman be forced to a carry her fetus to term if she didn't want to?", 79 per cent of the people would answer: "No." 

If someone else was paying for the survey and asked: "Should a woman be allowed to cruelly kill her own baby in her womb?" 79 per cent of the same group polled would answer: "No." Keep that in mind when some pro-abort quotes the results of some recent survey to you.

The biggest lie told by the pro-aborts in a gargantuan parade of lies is that “would-be-abortionists” won't do abortions because they are afraid they might get killed. Ever since new modern photography was able to show the developing baby in full color at the earliest stages of life, it didn't take long for the brightest medical students to figure out that it was murder. That left a dung heap of medical students who were willing to do abortions and maybe down the line knock off a few old people as well. Anything for a buck. Their motto: Show me the money!

As Dr. Bernard Nathanson - an abortion doctor who committed thousands of abortions and changed his mind - in his book The Hand of God - said, abortionists make big bucks. And Nathanson should know. It's about MONEY.

They say that the CBC Radio's typical abortion debate is to have four pro-aborts debate abortion. The only fair shake we get is from Michael Coren's radio talk show on Toronto station CFRB. On air recently he said that his seven-year-old daughter's teacher announced to the class that she was pro-choice and asked for a show of hands as to who was pro-choice. All put up their hands - except one - Coren's daughter. 

The teacher was miffed and asked her: "What are you?" She answered: "I'm pro-life." The teacher asked: "Why are you pro-life?"  "Because my father and mother are pro-life."

"Well, dear," the teacher asked, "If your father and mother were morons - would you be a moron?"

"No," Coren's daughter replied, "I'd be pro-choice."  

And then there are lies that only the Devil believes. The biggest one: `Therapeutic' abortions - which should have joined the sign over Nazi concentration camps `Work is Freedom' in the garbage can. The pro-aborts are hard at work. The New Collins Concise English Dictionary sneaks in a false definition of `therapeutic’. 1. ‘of or relating to the treatment of disease; curative.'  And the real weird definition: 2. ‘serving or performed to maintain health: therapeutic abortion.'  What pray tell has the tearing apart of unborn babies got to do with maintaining health? And since when has being pregnant become a `disease'? Now I can't even trust my dictionary! 
  
In the Toronto Globe & Mail, a pro-abortion daily, a recent article appeared: `Law or no Law - Abortion battle rages on'. It should have been a paid ad by CARAL. It totally ignores WHY Morgentaler got off in his jury trial in Toronto 10 years ago. According to the Toronto Sun, (Dec. 9, 1988) Morris Manning, acting for Morgentaler, used a team of U.S. consultants to pick a jury. 

They challenged anybody who was religious - was married - had a large family - wore a suit, or as I've said before - bathed regularly. It was jury tampering. Over the objections of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the then Attorney-General Roy McMurtry ignored "widespread public concern it could adversely affect the administration of justice,” and ruled that the professional jury selection team was `proper'.

How could stacking a jury with 12 pro-aborts be considered `proper'?  (Pro-aborts were also accused of lying or being evasive to get on the jury). McMurtry would not appeal. Yet in the recent Latimer case in Saskatchewan, checking out jurors for pro-life tendencies by the RCMP caused the case to be overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds of `jury tampering.’

The Morgentaler case was described as "one of the most momentous decisions in Canadian jurisprudence" and allegations of `jury tampering' never even got to the Supreme Court? "I say, Watson, there's something strange going on here."

"It's just a pack of pro-aborts on the Supreme Court, sir."