One Saturday in early July, I was sitting alone in the office when I heard a knock on our back door. It was a doctor from the Boyd Building upstairs who had visited the office a few weeks before.


After initial pleasantries were exchanged, it was clear that he wanted to have a conversation with me about our organization. The discussion would mainly revolve around the subjects of abortion and prenatal development.

Prenatal development models: from conception to birth

I explained to him that Life’s Vision is focused on contributing to the protection of the unborn through education, not political activism. I told him that we educate the public about prenatal development to help people understand the humanity and development of children in the womb. I also mentioned to him that we strive to educate the public about the risks that abortion poses to the health of women.

To my surprise, it seemed like he had done no research on the subject, so much so that he asked me about the kinds of risks I was referring to. I then explained that abortion is shown to contribute to pre-mature birth and miscarriage. I also told him that abortion was linked to an increased rate of breast cancer in young women.

He believed that abortion could contribute to both miscarriage and pre-mature birth, but had never heard of any studies linking it to breast cancer. I then handed him a copy of the Hush Documentary and told him that all of the health risks I spoke of were investigated in this documentary. He quickly read the box and in a very reluctant and dismissive tone, “I believe you”.

Copies of the Hush Documentary can purchased from Life's Vision at a reduced rate of  $15 each 

After conceding that a link exists between abortion and breast cancer, he said that he does not advocate for or against abortion. He then talked about the fact that he couldn’t understand how pro-life people could justify eating meat products. In his opinion, animals were living creatures whose lives needed to be protected as well. I tried to follow his reasoning and establish common ground on the subject, despite disagreeing with his premise that animals should have the same rights as humans. I then asked him if he advised all of his patients to become vegetarians. His answer: “if you are pro-life, you need to protect ALL life”. He added that people who aren’t vegetarians are treating humans as a “superior race.” He then ended this segment of our discussion, saying: “I am neither for or against abortion”.

The next part of our conversation was very telling. I asked him how he could be “neither for or against abortion.” In response to this question, his answer was: the prenatal child is a living being, but it does not have the same rights as a human because it is dependent on its mother to live. I then explained that every child is dependent on someone else to take care of them.

He basically said that a child becomes fully human when it breathes outside their mother’s body. Before that point, he believed that children are “the mother’s property, something she can do what ever she chooses with.”

I then explained my situation to him. “What about some one like me?” I asked, “ I was born at 29 weeks gestation and was no different when born then someone at the same point of development who remained inside their mother’s womb. He first asked me if I was “wanted”. When I answered, “Yes” he then told me that because I was born and was no longer inside my mother’s body, I was fully human. I asked him, “would my rights really change if I was not born and had remained in the womb to develop?” He believed that they would because I would still be in my mom’s body using her blood and nutrients.

29 week ultrasound

I then asked him if he felt that children who have been diagnosed with disabilities like Down Syndrome should be protected while they develop inside the womb? After all, if you are diagnosing them as a person with a disability, shouldn’t their life be protected alike to the lives of all humans?

His answer: “no, because that life is dependent on their mother and if it would burden her to take care of a disabled child then she has the right to have an abortion”. He added, “nobody wants to have an abortion” basically intimating that no one would have an abortion unless the child was burden to them. His basic thesis was: that life is using their mother’s blood and body so it is her property.

I then asked him, “shouldn’t the developing child inside a mother’s womb be entitled to rights that supersede the right of the mother to be unburdened of the guilt that she may feel if she carried the child to term and then put the child up for adoption?” He then went on to talk about the fact that animals were living things that aren’t entitled to the same rights as humans. He then took his ridiculous strategy one step further by asking if I have ever taken anti-biotics. He then told me that by taking anti-biotics I was killing the bacteria organisms that were living inside my body. I then asked him if he expected me to believe that a human being’s life is of the same value as bacteria?” His response: “I am neither for or against abortion.”

Our conversation dragged on for a while longer before it finally ended. At that point, I thanked him for coming by and shook his hand politely.

On one hand, I was pretty upset at the fact that this doctor basically said it was OK or even was a great idea to abort disabled children before birth. However, I was also happy that he was so honest with me about it. I know there are a lot more people out there who share his viewpoint. It is these people who motivate me to show the world the potential that all disabled people possess to make an impact on the world.