I was sitting in the barber shop recently waiting for my number to come up.  The locals were at their best dissecting the GST, Free Trade and the effects of reverse discrimination in employment.  The two Macedonian barbers, who have been clipping me for over 30 years, were listening attentively to the chatter and goading one customer after another to get into the act.

Usually I enjoy listening to the bare bones logic of the average working man who comes here.  I often wonder why some enterprising politician doesn’t plant a tape recorder in the shop for a few days.  Danny’s patrons could solve most of the woes besetting the local community, the country and for that matter, the rest of the world.

But that day my attention was absorbed by an article in the December issue of Life, entitled “Who is God?”

One of the writers, Hollywood producer Lynda Sparrow, reflected on her life and her daughter, Hannah, a genuine gift from God.  Although she is still trying to make a connection to God herself, she believes that Hannah is constantly in His trusting care.  But she also talks about an abortion she had when she was 23 years of age, she believes that Hannah is that same child she aborted.  “She came back to me.   I really, really believe this.”

This may well have been a woman suffering such pain from abortion that, years later, she is still stagnating in a pool of denial.  By convincing herself that Hannah is really the child who died by abortion, she also denies her own involvement in the abortion.

What can be said to these women to convince them that not only is there life before birth, but that there is life after abortion.  What can be said to make them understand that to enjoy life after abortion, they must confront abortion for what it is, then seek reconciliation, not only with God, but with themselves.  We have tried to convey this to women abused by abortion.  Have we tried hard enough?

When the abortion law was challenged in the United States in the 70’s a large portion of the funding was provided by Playboy.  Their philosophy has always held that women were ‘playthings’ to be used and discarded.  If women could be convinced to kill their unborn children, then the fathers could pay for an abortion and wash their hands of further financial responsibility for their actions.

Early feminists rejected abortion as the solution to an unplanned pregnancy, in part because it was a male response to an inconvenience.  Why is it that modern-day feminists refuse to see that a male response to a problem pregnancy is generally not the same as a woman’s?  Males impregnate women; males (for the most part) were responsible for the enactment of abortion legislation; and males commit the abortions.  And if women desire entry into the male-dominated business world, then men will allow them to do so as long as they are wombless females.  They refuse to acknowledge that women are equal to but different from men in many ways.

Then to add insult to injury, the male-run media set in motion the wheels of propaganda aimed at shaping the whole abortion push.  They insisted on referring to those in favor of killing the unborn as “pro-choice.”  Those who opposed the killing, they referred to as anti-choice or at best anti-abortion (both negative terms).  As id choice rally had anything at all to do with abortion.  Experience of pro-life groups in North America have shown that even attempts to ensure that a woman seeking an abortion be given full knowledge of her unborn baby have been rejected by the courts, the media and the feminists.  Some choice!  It seems then that pro-lifers must become their own media.  They must promote pro-family publications and tune out pro-abortion propaganda.

Abortion promoters are forever commissioning polls and surveys in an attempt to convince the fence-sitters that they’re out of sync if they oppose a “so-called” woman’s right to choose.  Questions which beg a pro-abortion response are used as fuel for the anti-life propaganda machine.

However, two years ago Liberal Senator Stanley Haidasz conducted a survey which included facts on abortion and the preborn baby.  He was interested in finding the informed opinions of the respondents.  More than 60,000 residents of the ten provinces and territories were selected at random from telephone directories and other public lists.  From over 10,000 people who responded, only 14 per cent favored abortion on demand.  It is quite clear then that Canadians, when armed with the truth about prenatal development and abortion, will come off the fence onto the side of life.

New and imaginative educational programmes to counter the pro-abortion lies and half-truths and to politicize pro-life voters are just some of the challenges faced by the leaders of Alliance for Life and Campaign Life Coalition.  Although our resolve is firm and our numbers swelling, the answers do not come easily.  It is now the task of each pro-life/pro-family Canadian to put into the hands of each and every person in this country evidence of the horror of abortion, to vote out of office every politician who refuses to take a public stand against abortion, and to elect people at all levels of government whose first priority is to stop all the killing.

We will not lose faith and we have to hope and pray that people such as Hannah’s mother are given the grace to have a personal relationship with God.  Then they will understand the true nature of abortion and see why it is such a terrible self-inflicted plague.