[MUSIC PLAYING]
SPEAKER 1: So welcome, everyone.
Our speaker today--
this is the first time
she has missed a very
special engagement,
and that is the
Vancouver Ukulele Circle.
So Stephanie Gray is actually
an avid ukulele player.
But in addition to
that, she is a Canadian
who has spent more
than 15 years giving
over 800 talks and debates
as well as hundreds of media
interviews on abortion to
diverse audiences in the United
States, Canada, Austria,
Latvia, England, Ireland, Costa
Rica, and Guatemala.
In university settings
she has debated
Dr. Fraser Fellows, a
late-term abortionist;
Ron Fitzsimmons, then executive
director of the National
Coalition of Abortion
Providers; Elizabeth Cavendish,
then legal director for
NARAL pro-choice America;
and Doctor Malcolm Potts,
the first medical director
for the International Planned
Parenthood Federation.
She's the author of "Love
Unleashes Life, Abortion
and the Art of
Communicating Truth,"
and we have copies
of her book available
for a subsidized price of $5.
So if you're interested, come
and buy a copy after the talk.
So with no further delay I will
introduce miss Stephanie Gray.
[APPLAUSE]
STEPHANIE GRAY: Thank you.
Thank you.
It's wonderful to be here.
I love asking questions.
In fact, I have a
friend who has nicknamed
me Inquisitive Stephanie.
And in my vast travels
around the world
I have asked a lot of people
the following question, who
inspires you?
And whenever someone answers
that question for me,
I then followed up with, why?
And here's what I've discovered.
Very often there are
different answers
for who inspires the
individuals I've encountered,
but I've begun to notice
a trend, a theme, when
it comes to why certain
individuals inspire us.
And as I have asked people
for the reasons for why
certain people inspire
them, what I've discovered
is it seems, generally, the
people who are inspiring
have suffered in some way or
they face some sort of obstacle
or some sort of challenge
or some sort of difficulty.
And what sets them apart
from those who don't inspire
is how they respond to their
suffering, to the challenge,
to the difficulty.
And what I've
noticed, this trend,
is that it seems inspiring
people in the face of obstacles
and suffering and
difficulty have at least
three qualities in common.
They put others
ahead of themselves.
They have perspective.
And they do the right
thing, even when it's hard.
They do the right thing,
even when it's hard.
And so what I wanted
to do today was look
at each of those
qualities in more detail
and relate them to the
very controversial topic
of abortion.
And in particular, I
want to share with you
various conversations
and encounters
I have had with people of
all different backgrounds
and viewpoints when
it comes to abortion,
and how I have been able to
use those three qualities
and show how they align very
much with the perspective
that I hold, which is
the pro-life perspective.
When it comes to that
first quality, that
of putting others
ahead of ourselves,
I would suggest that
regardless of someone's
political persuasion love
is universally attractive.
It is universally magnetic.
And ultimately, that's what
putting others ahead of ourself
is.
That's what love is.
It's willing the other's good.
And I would suggest
that again, regardless
of our political
persuasion, each individual
has a battle internally between
times where they put others
ahead of themselves and
times where they don't
put others ahead of themselves.
I was once debating with a
college student in Florida
a few years ago,
and we were debating
on the topic of abortion.
And in our conversation,
I'll admit,
I was thinking to myself,
he sounds selfish.
Now, perhaps I could identify
that so readily because I
knew that there were many
times I have been selfish.
And in fact, I can
think of a time
recently on one of
my frequent flights.
I had settled into my seat and
there was one empty seat next
to me, and sure enough
that passenger came along
to sit down.
And as she was
coming down the aisle
she was talking
with someone else
and it was very clear that
they were traveling together.
And it was very clear that
the person she was with
was further at the back of
the plane and this thought
entered my head.
I should offer my seat.
That would be nice.
I'm traveling alone.
I can take her
friend's seat so they
can sit next to each other.
But then I thought
to myself, I don't
like sitting near
the back of the plane
and I don't feel
like getting up,
and so I didn't offer my seat.
And I have to admit,
later that day I
was kind of reflecting
on my day and I
regretted that decision
of inaction and I thought,
that was selfish.
And my overarching
thought was, if I
move how will this impact me?
That's self-interested.
Instead of, if I move how
will this impact them.
That's other-oriented.
So I recognize that
weakness within me
and that that wasn't attractive.
The attractive quality is the
one that is other-oriented.
So I bring that up, taking
us now back to my encounter
with this college student,
talking about abortion
where he sounded selfish.
And I was thinking
to myself, even
though I have made selfish
choices, even though he sounds
selfish, I believe deep down we
are all drawn to selflessness.
How can I draw this out of him?
And besides loving questions,
I also love stories.
And as it should happen,
as I was dialoguing
with this student, this
story came to my mind
that I had read
about in the news.
The year was 2012 that this
student and I were talking,
and around that
time there had been
that Costa Concordia cruise
ship accident where the cruise
ship had been
steered a little too
close to shore near an Italian
village and hit ground and sank
and people lost their lives.
And so I said to this student
that I was dialoguing with,
do you remember hearing
about that in the news?
He said, yes.
And I said that made
international attention.
And I said it drew international
attention not just because it
was a major passenger vehicle
that had an accident, not just
because people
died, but there was
another element to this
story that shocked people
around the world.
Who remembers what it was?
Anyone?
The captain left the ship.
And that's what the
student said to me.
He answered my question about
this story by saying, well,
the captain abandoned ship.
Now, apparently the captain
says that the ship fell over
and he fell into a boat.
But the point was, the news
had been reporting it this way
and so the student
remembered that.
So then I said to him, and
how did our world respond?
Did our world respond
by saying, hey,
that was a really brilliant
choice of that Captain?
Or did the world
respond by saying,
how could he have done that?
And he said, well,
it was the latter.
Our world was saddened
by that kind of reaction.
So then I said,
let's contrast that
captain with another captain,
not of a cruise ship,
but of an airplane.
And I said to this
student, a few years ago--
now this was many years
ago now-- but back in 2012,
a few years prior to
that in 2009 there
had been a US airways
plane that had taken off
from LaGuardia, when my country
of Canada got in the way.
We have this really
annoying Canadian geese,
and I don't know if they
make their way down here,
but they certainly made
their way to New York
and so there was a whole
flock of Canadian geese
that were flying around
the exact same flight
pattern as this
US airways flight.
And so I said to this student,
as this plane was taking off
and these Canadian geese
we're flying nearby,
they got sucked into the
engines of the airplane
and it caused immediate
engine failure.
Do you remember that,
I said to this student.
He said, yes I do.
I said the captain of that
airplane, Chesley Sullenberger,
realized that he needed
to make an emergency
landing because if he
didn't control the landing
the plane was going to crash
with the dual engine failure.
And he realized he could
not get back to LaGuardia.
He couldn't get to Teterboro
or any of the other surrounding
airports, and so he
thought, I'm going
to try to do a water landing.
And he managed to safely
land that US airways plane
on the Hudson River
in what became known
as the miracle on the Hudson.
And I said to the student,
when that plane came to a stop
and everyone inside would
have gone to the nearest exit
to get off, that meant the
people at the back of the plane
would have gone
to the back exit.
But one of the first people
to get to the back door
didn't realize that the
tail of the airplane
was tucked in the water, so when
they whipped that door open,
the Hudson River starts
flooding into this airplane.
So I said to the
student, now everyone
is getting away from
the back of the plane
and they're escaping
out the middle doors
and the front doors,
and they're getting off.
Except for one person,
Captain Chesley Sullenberger.
As everyone's getting off
and away from the back,
he's staying on and
walking towards the back.
And as water was filling the
cabin about to waist level,
he walked the aisle not
just once, but twice,
to make sure no one
was left on the plane.
And he was the last
person to get off.
What did our world say about
him, I asked this student.
And he said, a hero.
Correct, I said.
Why?
And he said, well, because
he had dependent passengers
and he cared for them.
He prioritized their need.
He put them ahead of himself.
And I said, do you think that's
an example we should follow?
He said, yes.
And so I knew by his
reaction to that story
that he shared the view I
have, that even if we sometimes
fail in being
other-oriented, we know
that that's how we
ought to be, and that's
the example to follow.
And so once we can
establish that,
I then brought it back
to the topic of abortion
that we were debating.
And I said, if you agree that
it was correct for the pilot
to put the passengers
ahead of himself,
to prioritize the needs
of his dependents,
then wouldn't it
follow that when
it comes to the
topic of abortion
in an unplanned pregnancy
that a pregnant woman ought
to prioritize the needs of her
dependent, her pre-born child,
much like a passenger
in the airplane who's
in a vulnerable position
and needs someone who's
more skilled and older
and capable of helping
them to help them out?
Now some people respond
by saying, well, wait.
There's a big difference there.
You're comparing
apples to oranges.
The people getting
off of the airplane--
those passengers
were human beings.
Embryos and fetuses aren't.
So you can't make
that comparison.
And I would suggest that that
comparison is valid or invalid
depending on, indeed, whether
embryos and fetuses are
human beings, like the
passengers on the airplane.
And so in my work
I often wrestle
with that question
in conversations
with people, trying to
discern when does life begin.
And a good question-- because,
remembering I love questions--
a good question that I'll
often ask people is this,
do you believe in human rights?
And I can tell you, I have asked
that question around the world,
and consistently I
get one answer, yes.
And if someone believes in human
rights I then like to say, OK.
Well, what about
this human's rights
in the case of this
seven-week embryo?
Now sometimes people will look
at an image like that and say,
that's not a human.
And if that's someone's
reaction then in conversation
I think rather than
preaching at an individual,
a good strategy to take
is to just ask a question.
And the question I like to
ask is, what are her parents?
Is the pregnant woman human?
Is her partner human?
If yes, wouldn't
it logically follow
that their offspring must
be of the same species?
So then someone might
object and say, well,
even if biologically that's
human, it's not alive.
Well, I found myself
in a conversation
with another college
student a few years ago,
and I asked him what he
thought about abortion.
He said, I'm pro-choice.
I said, why are you pro-choice?
And he said, well, because
the fetus isn't alive.
And so I just asked
another question.
If the fetus isn't alive, why
do you need to do an abortion?
And he stopped and he looked
at me and he said, huh.
I'm going to talk to you.
I never thought of it that way.
And so we spent about
30 minutes engaging
in a friendly, civil dialogue
as a result of a question.
If someone objects to the
idea that the embryo is alive,
I think another good
question to ask is this,
is the embryo growing?
At the moment of
fertilization, when
you have a one-celled embryo, is
that one cell growing into two,
and are those two growing
into four and eight and 16,
and so forth?
And if yes, wouldn't
it follow by virtue
of the embryo's growth,
the embryo must be living?
And if the embryo
has human parents,
wouldn't it follow by virtue of
that the embryo must be human?
And if we believe in human
rights then wouldn't it
follow what we
know to be a living
human has the same human
rights as you or me?
Now, someone might object
at that point and say,
but it's just a fetus,
or it's just an embryo.
And so I think a
good question to ask
that I've asked many people
is this, what kind of fetus?
If you think about that
term for a moment, fetus,
that's not species-specific.
So other species have fetuses.
Dogs have fetuses,
dolphins have fetuses,
and humans have fetuses.
So the word fetus
doesn't so much
tell us what something is, but
tells us how old something is.
So again, with my
love of questions,
I'll often ask people when a
fetus is born to human parents
and is in the arms of the
mother, what do we now
call the fetus at that moment?
And people will
say, well, a baby.
And then when the baby turns
two, what do we call the baby,
I'll ask.
And, toddler, is
what people say.
And then when the
toddler turns 13,
what do we call the toddler?
I was once giving a talk--
an elderly woman piped up,
impossible.
That's what we call
that individual.
[CHUCKLES]
And then when impossible turns
21, what do we call impossible?
Even more impossible, right?
So the point is,
that we humans have
words to refer to age
ranges within our species.
And so the words adult or
teenager, toddler, baby, fetus,
and embryo simply tell
us how old an entity is,
not what an entity is.
If we want to know
what that entity is,
we have to ask what
are the parents.
Now, when it comes to the
abortion debate, one thing
that I have found that
provokes a lot of conversation
is defining the exact moment the
fetus or the embryo came to be.
And a lot of times
we, as a culture,
will resist the idea that,
when debating abortion,
that life would begin
at fertilization.
And so what I'd
like to suggest is
that, if we weren't talking
about abortion, we as a society
would more readily accept that
life begins at fertilization.
In fact, we already do.
And a good question to consider
involves this, the following.
Imagine someone is not pregnant
with an unwanted pregnancy.
Imagine they're trying
to achieve a pregnancy.
They desperately
want to be pregnant,
but they're struggling
with infertility.
So imagine this person goes
to an infertility specialist,
and that physician recommends
in-vitro fertilization, or IVF,
where an egg will be fertilized
by a sperm in a Petri dish
in a lab.
Now, setting aside
the ethics of that,
which could be a whole
other talk at Google--
setting aside the
ethics of that,
imagine the individual then
goes to an IVF specialist.
Have we as a society
ever heard someone
who's in the business of making
life, someone who is an IVF
specialist, have we
ever heard them say,
I just don't know
when life begins.
If you think about
it, when someone
is in the business
of making life
we never claim to not
know when it begins.
We know exactly when it begins.
The one moment that
the IVF specialist
is trying to
replicate in the lab
is the moment of fertilization.
The IVF specialist is not
happy with just a sperm.
Sample they're not happy
with eggs harvested
by perhaps a student
in debt trying
to get $10,000 or $20,000
for such a procedure.
They're not satisfied with just
the eggs or just the sperm.
The one moment they're
trying to create in the lab
is not three weeks
where you have
a heartbeat or six
weeks where you
have brain waves or a
nine-month gestated fetus.
The one moment
the IVF specialist
is trying to create in
the lab is the moment
of fertilization,
which I think tells us
we do know when life begins.
We know it begins
there, particularly when
we think about other species,
a little less-controversial
than our own.
We never hear
horse breeders say,
I just don't know
how to breed a horse.
I don't know when a horse
becomes a horse, or someone
who's breeding dogs or a
veterinarian in general saying,
I don't know when a
dog becomes a dog.
With other species we
have great clarity.
So why with our own species,
when it comes to abortion,
do we claim to not know
when life begins or we
claim that it's confusing
when, with these other species
or this other topic like
IVF, we have great clarity?
And we know that moment
to be fertilization.
When it comes to the
debate about abortion,
what I have found in debating
people formally and informally
all over the world is that it's
less of a scientific debate
and more of a philosophical one.
Less a question of, when does
life begin because really we
know the answer to
that, fertilization,
but more of a question
about personhood,
which is not really a
scientific discussion
but a philosophical one.
And there's a whole school of
thought by a philosopher, Peter
Singer, from Princeton
University, who
argues abortion is justified.
And even argues some
infanticide would be justified.
His school of thought
comes from the perspective
of a definition of personhood
that would exclude pre-born
and some born children.
And he would say a person
is someone who is rational,
conscious, and self-aware.
And so I have encountered
people, and perhaps some
in the room today,
some listening in,
who would argue that
even if biologically
the embryo and the
fetus are human,
that philosophically
they are not persons
and that's why we
could justify abortion.
That's why we wouldn't
have to protect
embryos and fetuses
the way it was
good for Captain
Sullenberger to protect
the passengers on the airplane.
Because they're people but
embryos and fetuses aren't.
So then the question
we have to wrestle
with is, what is the right
definition of a person?
Is a person someone who
is rational, conscious,
and self-aware, so that
if you're not those things
you're not a person?
Well, what I like to
do is ask the question,
why isn't, let's say, a
one-celled human embryo,
at fertilization--
why isn't that embryo rational,
conscious, or self aware?
I think we know
the answer to that,
is, well, the embryo is lacking
the organ necessary to be
rational, conscious,
and self-aware,
and that's the brain.
So then if we step back
for a moment and say, well,
why doesn't the embryo at
fertilization have a brain?
We know the answer to that.
Well, the embryo hasn't had
time to develop the brain.
And time is
reflected in our age.
So the one-celled
human embryo, yes,
isn't rational, conscious,
or self-aware in that moment,
but ultimately isn't
able to do those things
or be that way because
of how old she is.
Now, let's contrast that
with, let's say, an amoeba.
An amoeba is not rational,
conscious, or self-aware.
Why?
Well, because the amoeba
doesn't have a brain.
Well, why doesn't the
amoeba have a brain?
Not because it hasn't
developed it yet,
but because it's not within
its nature to develop a brain.
Because it's not within its
nature to be a thinking thing.
So in other words, an amoeba
is not rational, conscious,
or self-aware because of what
it is versus a human embryo who
is not rational,
conscious, or self-aware
because of how old she is.
So then that brings me
back to the question
about human rights.
Who gets human rights?
Isn't the necessary
criteria simply being human?
If we were talking, for
example, about women's rights,
the necessary criteria
for getting the right
would be being a woman.
If we were to talk
about children's rights
the necessary criteria
would be being a child.
So when we talk
about human rights,
the necessary criteria simply
is being human, not being human
in a certain age.
And so the question
is, should personhood
be grounded in how old we
are, or should personhood
be grounded in what we are?
Well, to answer
that question I find
it helpful to go to
the United Nations.
United Nations has a number
of different documents
on human rights.
And as I have read
these I've been
astounded by several things
that have stood out to me.
The first is that, in
the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights--
that is a document by
the United Nations--
it very clearly says, all
members of the human family
have the right to life.
So in other words, to
get the right to life
all that matters is that you're
a member of the human family.
But that document does
reference persons.
And it references
persons in Article VI.
And in Article VI of the
Universal Declaration
of Human Rights,
it says, everyone
has a right to recognition
everywhere as a person
before the law.
Well, let's define our terms.
Who's everyone?
Earlier in the document,
in the preamble,
"everyone" is defined as "all
members of the human family."
So this document is
essentially declaring,
if you're a member of the human
family you should automatically
be considered a person.
To understand why the
UN would say that,
I think we need to put
that document into context
and understand the history
of how it came to be.
The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights
was adopted in the late 1940s.
Of course, we know
in the early 1940s
we had the Holocaust
where-- what happened?
Some humans were deprived
of personhood status
based on some feature about
them, ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation.
And so the UN comes
up with this document
to say, no, the one thing
we all have in common
is our human nature.
And to ensure that
we don't repeat
the injustices of the
past, it codifies,
it puts in writing,
this idea that if you're
a member of the human family
you ought to automatically
be considered a person
and you should not
be deprived of your
personhood rights
based on some quality like
ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation.
And in the same
way, if that's true,
then we ought to
say the same thing
about what we know to be a
human embryo and a human fetus.
The quality of age shouldn't
be the basis for which someone
has personhood status,
and therefore they
ought to be considered
persons according
to Article VI by
virtue of being human,
not by virtue of being a
certain age that enables them
as a result of their age
to be rational, conscious,
and self-aware in that moment.
Their humanity is
what is consistent
as their age, and therefore
abilities, change.
If you think about the question,
when do we become persons,
I think what's
helpful is to look
at the timeline from the
moment of fertilization
to the moment of birth.
And if we draw the line
anywhere after fertilization,
we're ultimately basing it
based on a developmental stage,
or based on an age, which would
fly in the face of human rights
doctrines, which aren't to
acknowledge human rights based
on abilities or age, but instead
acknowledge human rights based
on being human.
And we know at the
moment of fertilization,
the one-celled embryo has
all the genetic material
distinguishing her from
the mother and the father,
and from that point
forward you're
going to change your
appearance, you're
going to change your
abilities, you're
going to change your age,
but your human identity
distinguishing you
from everyone else
is going to be what
remains the same.
As I have dialogued
with a lot of people
over the years, not
only have I found
the question of personhood
being raised in conversation,
but I have also found the
question of the dependency
of the pre-born child being used
as grounds to justify abortion,
where some people will say,
look, if someone has an infant
and they don't want the
infant, any of us in the room
are capable of caring
for the infant.
But if someone doesn't
want their fetus,
none of us in the room
are capable of caring
for the fetus.
Therefore, a woman should have
a right to have an abortion.
When I hear that
argument what crosses
my mind is, does the greater
dependency of the fetus
make the mother less
responsible or more responsible?
Well, I found myself
in conversation
a few years ago with
a different student,
and this young woman
said to me, look,
if you have a baby in one hand
and a fetus in the other hand,
you obviously pick the baby.
And I thought to
myself for a moment
about babies versus fetuses.
As I just said a
moment ago, you know,
if there was a baby
in this room napping
we could all leave and come
back and the baby would be fine.
But if there was a fetus
left out on the podium here
and we all leave and come back,
the fetus is going to be dead.
So I thought, in a sense,
babies are stronger
and fetuses are weaker in
relation to each other.
So I thought, what
this student actually
said to me, although she
didn't verbalize it, was this.
If you have a strong
person in one hand
and you have a weaker
person in the other hand,
you obviously pick
the stronger person.
And when it kind of
translated in my mind what
she'd said to that,
I thought to myself,
civil societies actually
do just the opposite.
We tend to prioritize weaker
people rather than stronger
people.
Again, the captain prioritizes
the passengers, or ought to,
and so forth.
And so I thought to myself,
how do I communicate
that I think civil
societies actually
would prioritize weaker people
ahead of stronger people?
And as it should happen,
a story came to my mind.
And again, as I said,
I love telling stories.
And the story that came to
my mind relates to this.
And so I said to this
student, what you just
said about babies versus
fetuses reminds me of a picture
my friend posted on Facebook.
And I said, it was a
picture of a river,
and in the middle of
the river was something
slightly curvy sticking up.
And, in reality, it
was the kind of picture
that I would keep
swiping away if it
hadn't been for the caption.
And the caption my friend posted
with this picture was this,
my husband is a hero.
And then my friend
went on to explain why,
as I then explained
to this student.
My friend wrote, my
husband is a paramedic
and at midnight he was called
to the scene of a car accident.
A woman had been
driving down the road.
She lost control of her vehicle,
and as it spun out of control
it landed in a nearby river.
When my friend's
husband got to the scene
he saw that that
woman driver was
sitting on the roof
of her sinking car,
holding her 10-month-old
baby in her arms.
My friend's husband jumps in
the water, swims towards the car
and then realizes he
can only take one person
at a time to shore.
I looked at the student
I was dialoguing with
and I asked her a question.
Who do you think
he picked first?
Obviously, she knew the answer.
Well, the baby.
Correct, I said.
Why?
If you had to explain
the reasoning why
he picked the baby over
the mom to take first,
what would it be?
She said, well,
obviously because if he
pick the mom first
then by the time
he got back the car the baby
could have rolled in the water
and drowned.
Correct, I said.
So would you say it's fair
to summarize your response
to this story by acknowledging
that you believe when you
have a strong
person in one hand,
like the mom, and a weaker
person in the other hand,
like the baby, that we ought to
prioritize the needs of weaker
people?
She said, of course.
And then I brought it
back to her original point
about babies versus fetus.
And I said, anyone could care
for a baby and a baby could be
left alone for a while, but
only one person could care
for a fetus and
cannot be left alone.
So, in a sense, the
baby is stronger,
like the mom in the story,
whereas the fetus is weaker,
like the infant
in the mom's arms.
And since you believe
that we should prioritize
weaker and more vulnerable
people ahead of stronger
people, then shouldn't we
actually prioritize the needs
of the pre-born child?
That point was something that
was emphasized very clearly
in a different encounter that
I had through what someone
shared with me.
I was once at an
exhibit that was looking
at parallels between
historical injustices
and present-day injustices.
One of the parallels being the
Rwandan genocide and abortion.
The argument being that,
at the time the Tutsis were
slaughtered they
weren't deemed to be
equal to the Hutu extremists,
but rather inferior.
And because they were
deemed to be inferior,
the dehumanizing
actions were justified.
The parallel then being
that someone generally
who supports abortion
does not say,
I think embryos and fetuses are
equal to us and I want to kill.
Not at all.
But instead, deem the embryo
and fetus to be inferior,
and therefore
rationalizes actions
which would take away
that human's rights
because they don't
consider them equal.
The argument then being, if
we were wrong in the past
about dehumanizing
one group of humans,
could we be wrong in the
present about dehumanizing
another group of humans?
So one of the signs
at this exhibit that I
was standing with was this one.
And a woman came
past and stopped
and began to speak with
me, and she told me
that she was from Rwanda.
And she told me that
most of her family
had been killed in the
genocide from the mid '90s.
And I will admit, I became
very self-conscious standing,
representing this
sign, because I
began to wonder if
perhaps this woman would
be offended by the
comparison that I was making.
But instead of
assuming and wondering,
I thought the best
thing I can do
is seek to understand
and ask her a question.
And so I looked at
this woman and I
said, given all you have
told me about the brutality
that your family
members were victims of,
what you just barely
escaped by fleeing
the country before things got
really bad, how do you feel,
I said, about this
comparison I'm making?
And she stepped back and she
moved her gaze really from me--
she hadn't really looked
that closely at the picture--
and then she just stood in
silence for about 20 seconds
as she looked at this poster.
And then finally she
pointed to the picture
of the aborted child and
she said, that's worse.
Because at least my family
could try to run away.
This woman recognized
the greater
a human's vulnerability,
the greater another's
responsibility towards
that individual.
So if we think about
that, that first quality
that I have identified, that
inspiring people seem to have,
that people I've dialogued
with have shared with me,
it is the idea that we ought to
put others ahead of ourselves.
Even when we've failed, we
know deep down that that's
something to aspire towards.
And it's clear that the
human embryo and fetus
are an other just like the
passengers in the airplane.
The next point that I
wanted to address today
is the second
quality I have found
in inspiring people, which is
that they have perspective.
One of my favorite authors
is Dr. Victor Frankel,
who has written the book,
"Man's Search for Meaning."
I love books and I love
gifting books to other people.
And "Man's Search for
Meaning" is probably one--
the leading book that I have
given to a lot of people.
The other one would be
"Essentialism" by Greg McKeown,
which is a phenomenal book.
But not what I'm here
to talk about right now.
But "Man's Search
for Meaning" I've
given away to so many people.
And this book was written
by a man who was a Holocaust
survivor and a psychiatrist.
And so "Man's
Search for Meaning"
is really a two-part book.
The first part is
about his experiences
in the concentration camps,
and the second part of his book
is his theories in psychology.
And one of the points
that he makes in his book
is the following.
He said that he observed
both as a prisoner
and as a psychiatrist--
who, in a sense,
as a prisoner was studying
human behavior as he
was being victimized in
the concentration camps.
One of the things he observed
is that, he would have expected
all of the guards to be cruel.
And most of them were.
But he said every now
and then, surprisingly,
amidst all the cruel guards
there was someone who was kind.
And then he said,
amongst the prisoners
there were some who, when
treated like animals,
became like animals
and were cruel
to their fellow prisoners.
But there were others, he said,
regardless of how brutally they
were treated, maintained
their humanity,
and in their starving state
would save morsels of food
not for themselves but
for a fellow prisoner.
And when Dr. Frankel
makes this observation
it draws him to this conclusion.
Someone can have a
similar experience
but still choose a different
response to the experience.
And he says, the last of the
human freedoms that can never
be taken from us is the freedom
to choose how to respond
to the situation that we're in.
That is what perspective is.
Inspiring people
who have perspective
can be in a horrible
circumstance,
in a sense beyond their
control, but they recognize
what is still
within their control
is their response to
that circumstance,
is their attitude.
And Dr. Frankel has come up
with a mathematical equation
that explains the
power of perspective.
Because in the
concentration camps
he saw a lot of
suffering, suffering
that was so bad that some
people sought to commit suicide
because they despaired.
And Dr. Frankel said,
early on in his time
at the concentration
camps he decided
he would never kill himself.
Moreover, would he
not commit suicide,
but he was going to try to
dissuade his fellow prisoners
from doing that.
And he discovered the way to try
to convince them not to despair
was to help them find meaning.
And so his mathematical
equation was this.
D equals S, minus M. Despair
is suffering without meaning.
He recognized, in the present
circumstances removing
the suffering was
near impossible,
but he could decrease
despair to the extent
that he increased meaning.
And Dr. Frankel, years after
coming out of the concentration
camps, cites an example where
this equation, in a sense,
was brought to life
with a young teenager he
learned about in Texas who
had become a quadriplegic.
A lot of times when
people are asked,
imagine if you were
suddenly paralyzed,
would you want to keep living?
And when we're not in that
state we think, no, I wouldn't.
Well, Dr. Frankel cites
an example of someone
who found herself
not being asked
that question in a hypothetical,
but that was reality.
She became quadriplegic.
She would spend her
days watching the news,
reading the news,
and whenever she
came across a story
of someone who
was going through a very
difficult time, of someone who
was suffering in
some way, she would
ask an assistant
to bring a stick
and place it in her mouth.
She would then use
that stick, bend over
to press keys on a keyboard
so she could write letters
of encouragement to the people
she'd read about in the news.
And Dr. Frankel said her life
is filled with an abundant sense
of meaning.
We decrease despair
in the presence
of suffering to the extent
we increase meaning.
That's what I mean
by perspective.
I saw the power of perspective
up close and personally
a few years ago when
I had the privilege
of spending an afternoon with
this young man, Nick Vujicic.
How many of you have heard
of this motivational speaker?
I did a quick Google search
as to whether you had a "Talks
at Google" with Nick Vujicic,
and I don't think you have,
so I highly recommend it.
This guy's hilarious.
So, it helps that
he has an accent.
He's from Australia.
I just think accents are cool.
But he's really funny.
So anyways, I know someone who
knows someone who knows Nick.
And he was coming
to the city I used
to live in Canada, in
Calgary, and so I thought,
I got to try to meet this guy
because I talk about his story
so often.
So, sure enough, he
was willing to meet
with me and my colleagues and
we surprised my colleagues
with him.
They didn't know
that he was coming,
and they all knew his story.
So when he came to the
office they were shocked.
Like they were like, no way!
This isn't you!
And then Nick looks at everyone.
He goes, I'm not Nick Vujicic.
I'm his stunt double.
[LAUGHTER]
So anyways, Nick is a funny guy.
He lives a full life.
He loves traveling the world,
speaking to millions of people,
and inspiring them,
getting access to audiences
I could only dream
of getting access to.
And it's because of
what he doesn't have.
It's because of
his lack of limbs.
He looks at this disability
as an opportunity.
But he didn't always
have that attitude.
He didn't always have
that perspective.
When Nick was a child he was
bullied and taunted and made
fun of so much that one night
while lying in the family
bathtub he thought about rolling
over and drowning himself
in an act of suicide.
Now, he obviously
didn't do that.
But what's also obvious
is that his circumstances
didn't change.
He still lacks the limbs now
that he locked in that bathtub.
So what's changed?
His perspective.
Instead of thinking about
what his lack of limbs
prevents him from
doing, he started
to think about what his lack
of limbs enabled him to do.
In the afternoon
I spent with him
I spent also with another
family he had invited along,
and that family included
this 2-year-old girl, Brooke.
And, as you can see,
Brooke doesn't have arms.
Nick's lack of limbs was
not diagnosed in utero
by ultrasound.
It was only discovered
when he was born.
Brooke's lack of limbs--
or her lack of arms--
on the other hand,
was discovered while her mom
was pregnant via ultrasound,
and when the mom went
for a routine ultrasound
and they saw the fetus
didn't have arms,
the doctors offered
to do an abortion.
Brooke's parents said no.
They didn't have a smartphone
at the time, so they went home
and where do you
think they went?
Google.
I've told this
story so much, but I
have to say, I've never
told it at Google,
so I think that's really cool.
[LAUGHTER]
So they went on to Google and
they typed, "no arms," Enter.
And the first hit
was Nick Vujicic.
And they spent the
rest of that pregnancy
looking at videos of someone
who was like their daughter.
And then an opportunity came,
two years after she was born,
for them to drive eight
hours through the mountains
from British Columbia to
Alberta in Western Canada
to see in the flesh someone
who looked like their daughter.
And when I saw Nick and
Brooke interact I thought,
he is uniquely positioned
to motivate and inspire
Brooke in a way
her parents can't,
in a way her sister
can't, in a way none of us
could and it's because
of what he doesn't have.
His obstacle is now
his opportunity.
That's the power of perspective.
I think that can be,
then, obviously related
to the abortion discussion.
How can we change
our perspective
in an unplanned
crisis situation?
In another occasion
where I was on a college
campus a student came to
the microphone and said,
my step mom had an
abortion because she
was told her fetus was
going to die at birth.
Are you telling
me she was wrong?
And I first expressed
sympathy to the student
saying that I was
sorry for the suffering
that his step-mom went through
and I don't pretend to know
what that must have been like.
And I said to him, your
question is a fair one,
and I'm going to answer it.
But I said, if
you'll bear with me,
I believe I can best address
your question by engaging you
in a dialogue, by asking
you some questions.
Would that be OK?
He said sure.
I said, OK.
Well, the question I
have for you actually
involves setting
aside the abortion
topic for just a
moment and entering
into a thought experiment.
I said, I want you to
imagine that someone
you love dearly on the opposite
end of the country calls you--
calls you today and says, I've
just been diagnosed with cancer
and I've been given
four weeks left to live.
I looked at this student
and I said, would you
wait until week three,
day six, to hop on a plane
and go say goodbye to
the person you love?
Or, I said, would you take
the next flight out and savor
every moment of every day of the
next four weeks with the person
you love?
And he said, well,
the second option.
I said, me too.
And here's what I think
this says about us.
What I think it
says about us is,
we recognize when we have
a minimal amount of time
left with someone
we love, we want
to maximize the minimal time.
We don't want to cut short the
already short time we have.
That's perspective.
So I said, let's take that
principle, that perspective,
and let's apply it to the
situation your step-mom found
herself in.
Before that poor
prenatal diagnosis,
she probably thought she
had 50 years with her child.
And in one moment of
hearing that news,
your baby's going
to die at birth,
she went from having 50
years to roughly 20 weeks.
I said, based on your analysis
of the thought experiment,
why would we cut short
the already short time
we have left?
Instead, wouldn't
we want to savor
every moment of every day of
the next 20 weeks with the child
that we love?
Now, upon the birth happening
and the child dying,
would there be sorrow, grief?
Absolutely.
But if you have the abortion
and you wanted to be pregnant,
would there be sorrow and grief?
Yes.
So having the abortion instead
of carrying on 20 more weeks
is not going to spare sadness.
But it will rob you
of the gift of time.
And that's, again, where we
want the power of perspective.
The final point that I wanted
to address this morning
was that quality
of inspiring people
which is to do the right
thing, even when it's hard.
If you think about it, that
fits with your code of conduct.
I know you have a slogan
here of "don't be evil,"
and when Alphabet came to
be it got a little broader,
to do the right thing.
But we know that we
should do the right thing,
even when it's hard.
And I think that's relevant
in the abortion discussion
if we think for a moment
about the circumstances
that a pregnant
woman could be in.
And if we think about
the reasons that
would prompt someone
to have an abortion,
we can acknowledge this is hard.
Imagine being pregnant from
rape, being in poverty,
having health problems,
just not wanting the child,
or being really young,
having no support.
In each of these
situations, wherever
someone sits on the abortion
debate, what side of the fence
they're on, there's
agreement, to be pregnant
and poor would be hard.
To be pregnant and
young would be hard.
To be pregnant from rape would
be excruciatingly difficult.
There's no denying
the difficulty
in these circumstances.
The question is, what ought we
do when circumstances are hard?
Well, let's imagine the
circumstances are these,
but not with a pregnant
person but someone who's
parenting this born child.
Would it be easy or hard to take
care of this child in poverty?
Hard.
Would be easy or hard to care
for this child and be 14?
Hard.
Would it be easy or hard
to parent this child,
knowing every day
you look in her face
you're reminded her
father was a rapist?
It would be hard.
Would we ever allow someone
to end this child's life
because the circumstances
for the parent are hard?
We wouldn't.
We would say we need to do the
right thing, even when it's
hard.
And so I would suggest,
in the various encounters
I've had that we have
the same attitude when
it comes to this
life, since we know
this is a living human being
who, according to Article
VI of the UN, ought to be
considered a person who's
simply younger than
the rest of us.
And since human rights
aren't grounded in age,
they're grounded in
being human, then
we ought to say here
as we say there,
we have to do the right
thing, even when it's hard.
And that brings to mind
several people I've
had the privilege of meeting
who I believe, by their stories,
have inspired me to do
the right thing when
it's hard in my own life the
way they've done that in theirs.
A few months ago I
spoke in Guatemala
and I spoke alongside
another speaker, my friend
here, Lianna.
Lianna and I met for the
first time in Guatemala.
She speaks both Spin--
Spinglish.
[CHUCKLING] She speaks
English and Spanish.
I, on the other hand,
only speak English
and so I had a
translator translate
for the audience my talk.
But because she
spoke in Spanish that
meant when she gave her talk
I couldn't understand it.
So it wasn't until we
got to the restaurant
after giving our
first presentation
in the hotel we
were staying in that
evening that we
shared our stories
and got to know each other.
And as we were talking she
mentioned that she was 37.
And I said, no way, I'm 36.
And then a short while
later she mentioned
that she had a daughter.
And I said, well, how
old is your daughter?
And she said, 25.
And then I did the math
and I thought, 25 years ago
I was 11, which means 25
years ago Lianna was 12.
And Leanna told me her
story, that growing up
in Mexico City, when she was 12
one day two men kidnapped her,
held her for two days,
and brutally raped her.
She got pregnant from that rape.
And when she went to the
doctor and discovered this,
the doctors offered
her an abortion.
And Lianna asked the
doctors if abortion
would help her forget the rape,
if it would help ease her pain
and suffering.
And the doctor said, well,
no, it won't do that.
And she realized in that moment
that if ending her baby's life
wouldn't benefit anybody,
she wasn't going to do it.
And Lianna said, if abortion
wasn't going to heal anything,
I didn't see the point.
She said, I just knew I had
somebody inside my body.
I never thought about who
her biological father was.
She was my kid.
She was inside of me.
And just knowing she
needed me made me
want to get a job to help her.
But in an interview
Lianna did, she
shared that, although
that was her attitude
about the pregnancy, the
rape itself caused her life
to become a living hell.
No matter how many
times she showered,
she could not get rid of the
feeling that she was dirty.
And so she started to
entertain thoughts--
or she thought about
committing suicide.
But when she thought
about committing suicide,
she remembered she
was pregnant and she
had to think not only about
herself but about the child,
and so she didn't kill herself.
And she looked at me in
that restaurant in Guatemala
and she said to me, Stephanie,
I saved my daughter's life,
but she saved mine.
In another story of
an inspiring person
I've met who I believe brings
this third principle to life,
I'm reminded of a young
woman by the name of Veronica
who was a college student who
got pregnant unexpectedly.
And her boyfriend wanted
her to have an abortion
and her friends wanted
her to have an abortion,
but she ended up telling her
parents and moving back home
and getting support.
And she sent me this picture of
her and her daughter, Amelia.
And I'd like to read for
you what she said to me when
she sent this picture.
She said, the picture
I've enclosed of Amelia
and I doesn't
fully show my face,
but it's an important
picture to me.
Amelia became very ill
with respiratory problems
around seven months, which
meant a lot of nights dealing
with fever, congestion,
pain control,
and a sad little baby who kept
waking up due to having trouble
breathing in her sleep.
She said, I took this
picture one night
when I decided to let her
sleep on my chest instead
of the crib, and she slept
throughout the night,
and so I did that every
night until she was better.
And she said to
me, it represents
what we do as
mothers, that we stop
looking at ourselves as
individuals with needs
and instead we
begin to look at how
we can serve another and
therefore love another.
And with doing that,
she said, comes
learning to love ourselves.
And finally, I'm reminded
of my friend Debbie.
Debbie's story is similar
to Lianna's and Veronica's,
in that she was
unexpectedly pregnant.
But unlike Lianna's
and Veronica's story,
Debbie had an abortion.
And she deeply regrets having
made that choice, but realizes,
like all of us, she
cannot undo her past.
But she became convicted
that if she had regrets
and she knew the
impact of her choice
back then that she lives with
now, that she would have wanted
someone to tell their story.
And so she's decided
to tell her story
to try to help people
think differently when it
comes to the crisis they're in.
And so she travels to
different audiences
and she talks about
her choice and she
talks about regretting it.
And once she was in an audience
where a student had a friend
en route to an abortion clinic,
and he simply sent his friend
a text.
There's a woman here who
regrets her abortion.
And the friend texted back, why?
And so this young woman was
willing to sit down with Debbie
and listen to not
only Debbie's story,
but give Debbie an
opportunity to listen to her
and what her reasonings
were for abortion.
And she felt she had
no support, that she
couldn't get through that
pregnancy and parenting.
So Debbie said, I'll support
you and your friend here
will support you.
That girl didn't go to the
abortion clinic that day,
but she did go the next day
to hear her child's heartbeat,
and then she decided to carry
through with that pregnancy.
And several months later,
this baby girl was born.
And to wrap everything up before
we move it into questions,
I just want to leave
you with the thought
that, whether it's this teenage
mom who not only is delighted
that she has this baby--
but she encouraged
another friend
to carry through
with a pregnancy
that that friend is
grateful to have--
whether it's this teenage
mom or whether it's Debbie,
or whether it's
Lianna, or Veronica,
whether it's little
Brooke or her parents,
whether it's Captain
Sullenberger who prioritized
the passengers on his
airplane, whether it's
Nick Vujicic, that you remember
all these people and think,
they're inspiring because they
put others ahead of themselves,
because they had
perspective, and because they
did the right thing even
when it was really hard.
And that's the challenge that
I leave all of you with today.
Thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]
At this point I would
be happy to engage you
in a dialogue, a conversation,
and a question and answer
period.
So if you have questions
about the topic in general
or anything I've shared, I
would be happy to answer them.
And Mark has a
microphone over there,
and he will take it around.
So any questions?
AUDIENCE: I was
wondering, how do
you suggest creating
a dialogue like this
in an environment which is
almost entirely for abortion?
So how do you even
start this conversation
when you know there is such
a strong outward resistance
to a pro-life point of view?
STEPHANIE GRAY: You know,
hopefully it came through
in the stories that
I shared, that I
think a lot of the times the
way we start conversations--
whether we think it's
an environment that's
going to be friendly
or not so friendly--
is to start conversations
with open-ended questions.
So I will ask people, what
do you think about abortion?
And if that might seem like
a really random, not so
much lunch-table
conversation, you
could maybe find an article
in the newspaper or something
that you read about online that
somehow relates and bring it
up, and say, did you see that
article about x, y, or z?
And it made me think, what do
you think about this topic?
What do you think
about abortion?
And really seek to
understand where
that person is coming from.
And to give you an example,
once on an airplane
a guy sitting next to me--
we shared what our jobs were
and he asked what I did,
and I said, I go and give
talks about abortion.
And he said, really?
That's fascinating.
And I just looked at him
and said, what do you
think about abortion?
And he said, I think
it's necessary sometimes.
And I just asked
another question.
I said, when do you
think it's necessary?
And he said, like cases of rape.
And I said, you know,
I agree with you
that rape is a
horrible evil and we
need to not only support the
woman who's been victimized,
but we need far more serious
consequences for the rapists.
And then I said to him,
I have to ask myself
a question though.
And the question I have
to ask myself is this,
is it fair to give the death
penalty to the innocent child?
And this passenger looked
at me and he said, well,
I never thought of it that way.
And so I didn't go in boarding
my plane with the intention
to speak about abortion.
I just asked a few questions
when someone asked me
what my job was.
Any other questions?
AUDIENCE: Hi.
So I have a friend who
says he's pro-life.
Like, if he were with a
woman who was pregnant
he would really do
everything in his power
to persuade her to choose life.
But he says he wouldn't want to
impose that decision on someone
else.
What is your--
STEPHANIE GRAY: So that is a
common perspective people have,
is, I feel this way, and I
might even encourage you,
but I can't force my
views on you insofar
as I don't think the
law, for example,
should reflect how I would live.
And when someone says that, I
think analogies are helpful.
I would ask a question and
draw an analogy out of it.
I would say, well, would you
say that you're against rape?
Yes.
And if someone was
going to commit rape,
would you try to stop them?
Yes.
And do you think, if you're
incapable of stopping them
and they actually
commit rape, that we
ought to have laws that ban
rape so there are consequences
for that person?
And if they say yes,
then I would say, OK.
So you clearly think,
under some circumstances,
we should have laws that say
certain actions are wrong.
So then why, when it
comes to abortion,
would you treat it
differently if abortion
ends the life of a human being?
Now, if abortion doesn't end
the life of a human being,
then I think we can call
into question, should
we have any laws against it?
But since we know we're dealing
with a human being that's
living, then if
the act of abortion
ends that human being's life,
it's not enough for me to say,
I personally won't kill
someone, but if you
want to kill someone
that's your right.
If the facts are true,
if the evidence is there,
we have to go to its
logical conclusion and say,
if this action ends someone's
life it's wrong not just for me
but it's wrong for everyone.
And we ought to
have laws against it
as we do with rape and
other types of murder
and other things like that.
So we can't determine whether
we should, quote unquote,
"force our views
on other people"
until we know what the view is.
Like, for example, a
lot of times people
say, I support a
woman's right to choose.
We have to finish our sentence.
That's not
grammatically correct.
Choose what?
It's hanging there.
I support a woman's right to
choose what color shoes to wear
with her outfit.
Sure.
What kind of ice cream
she thinks is the best.
Sure.
But I don't support
a woman's right
to choose to kill an
innocent child, regardless
of the child's age.
So in a similar way, if I said
to you, I support a man's right
to take, you would have to
ask me to define what I mean.
Take what?
And it it's, support a
man's right to take his bag
and walk out of the
room, totally OK.
But I don't support
a man's right
to take someone else's
bag out of the room.
So we need to define what
we mean by choice, by take,
by all of this stuff,
and if in defining it
evidence leads us to the
fact that we're actually
ending someone's life or
violating a human right,
then we have to create
a structure legally
that bans that for the interests
of our fellow human beings.
Any other questions?
AUDIENCE: I haven't really
quite formulated my question.
On top of-- using that
same analogy then,
what good would incarcerating
a mother be when we're talking
about the issue--
the issue being that women do
not have enough support right
now, so what good
would making it illegal
do for the woman in showing her
that there is support for her,
that there is another way?
STEPHANIE GRAY:
Very good question.
So certainly I would say,
it's not just one strategy
and abandoning all
other strategies.
The slogan I like to use is,
make abortion unthinkable.
But in believing it
ought to be unthinkable
based on the evidence of
dealing with a human being
and believing in human
rights, believing
it ought to be unthinkable
doesn't exclude me from saying,
I also believe it
ought to be illegal.
I do believe it ought to
be illegal and unthinkable.
What would be the
consequences for a woman who
violates the law?
Well, the first point
is, no woman is currently
violating the law.
So we're not talking
about, for example,
putting women in jail
who have had abortions.
What we're talking
about is a hypothetical
at some future point
when the law changes,
what ought the consequences be.
And even when we say
something is illegal--
you know, it's
illegal to steal--
what the consequences are
for any individual who steals
vary from case to case.
You might find a situation
where a woman has an abortion
under emotional duress.
She actually is not
freely choosing it.
It's against the
law, but someone's
pressuring her or forcing her
to go there against her will,
so that would be one example.
Or you have cases like
Andrea Yates where
you have a woman who drowned her
born children in the bath tub.
I believe in her
case she was found
not criminally responsible.
Her actions were still wrong
and they're still unlawful,
but a case was made, or could
be made in circumstances
like this, where someone was
not of the right frame of mind
to be fully consenting to the
action that they were taking.
So all of that needs to
be taken into account.
But the reality is,
the law currently
isn't against abortion.
And so what I think is
very important, as efforts
are made to have the law
changed to reflect human rights,
that all of us have the
inalienable right to life,
in the meantime we have
to offer support to women.
Absolutely.
And there are pregnancy centers.
There are homes
for pregnant women.
There are nonprofits
across the country that
exist to do that very
thing and to not only
journey with a woman
through her pregnancy,
but to really walk with her
after her pregnancy as well.
If she chooses to parent
rather than adoption,
she's going to need
a lot of support.
And these centers
exist, and I would
say very much should have
our attention and support.
So I hope that was helpful.
Any final questions?
AUDIENCE: Well, you've
given an inspiring talk.
So you're kind of like
that good person quality
that you're kind of mentioning.
So I was going to ask
a personal question.
What inspires you
to be who you are
to give talks around the world?
STEPHANIE GRAY: Well, thank you.
In terms of what inspires me.
You know, just speaking of
pregnancy centers there--
my mom volunteered
at a pregnancy center
when I was a young child.
Both my parents were really
active in the pro-life cause,
you could say,
generally speaking,
but in particular
my mom volunteered
at a pregnancy center.
So when clients would
come for pregnancy tests
I would often go with her and
I would doodle on letter head
while she was in the office
counseling the girls.
And when those
clients gave birth
my mom would go to the
hospital with flowers
and I would come along.
And so from a very
young age I saw
that there were women in crisis
who felt they had no support.
And I saw that there were
people like my parents
and my mom who would
support them and love them
through that
difficult circumstance
and turn that obstacle they
were in into an opportunity.
And that laid the
foundation to really convict
me to want to use
the skills that I
had to help those who were
more vulnerable and in need.
And I went to
university, actually,
with plans to pursue
a different career.
But I heard an American
speaker who came to Canada,
and I was a college student.
His name is Scott Klusendorf,
and he gave a presentation
on this topic that blew my mind.
And in that talk he said,
there are more people
working full-time to kill
babies than there are
working full-time to save them.
And I'll admit, when I heard
those words I became very
convicted that I wanted to
be one of the people being
a voice for those who were
entirely incapable of raising
their voices against what
was happening to them.
And a lot of things unfolded,
and here I am 15 years later.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you
very much, Miss Gray.
[APPLAUSE]
If you guys have any
remaining un-asked questions
she'll be here.
You can talk to her in person.
And again, we have copies of
her book, "Love Unleashes Life."
So thank you very
much for coming.
And for those tuning
in as well, too.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
