humanlifereview.com
2025-04-25
Artificial intelligence, commonly abbreviated as AI, has revolutionized the world. It has already led to advances in science, medicine, and entertainment, and now it is taking part in the abortion debate. Content creator Jon Oleksiuk recently designed two artificial intelligence models, training one to think as "Dr. Choice," a pro-choice ob-gyn, and the other as "Dr. Life," a pro-life neonatologist. He then had the AIs debate each other, responding to the prompt: "How should we understand the beginning of human life; and at what point should it be protected?" Oleksiuk appointed several famous AI language models, including ChatGPT, to judge the debate.
Dr. Choice opened the debate with a surprising admission: It is a scientific fact, the AI model stated, that life begins at conception. However, Dr. Choice continued, the fetus, despite being alive, is not officially a person at the early stages of pregnancy. Personhood, Dr. Choice argued, begins when one displays self-consciousness and a capacity for complex experiences. Since the cortical activity necessary for this complex form of consciousness begins at around 24 weeks, a fetus can be ethically aborted before that period. Dr. Choice also argued that common sense conflicts with the belief that a zygote is morally equal to a fully-grown infant. When given the choice to sacrifice a baby or a petri dish of zygotes, everyone will choose to sacrifice the zygotes. This, Dr. Choice claimed, proves that we innately know that abortion is morally permissible. Seeking to strengthen its argument that common sense contradicts the pro-life position, the AI ob-gyn stated that if a fetus were truly a person, miscarriages ought to be morally and legally equivalent to accidental death. Since nobody sees miscarriages in this way, fetuses in early periods of gestation are not officially recognized as people. Dr. Choice further argued that one must consider the ethical standard of viability. Since a fetus cannot exist independently until around the 24-week mark, it should not be considered a true individual before that point. Dr. Choice's finishing argument concerned a moral obligation of altruism. Nobody is compelled to sustain others in life-threatening situations, the pro-choice AI observed, even when the purpose is to save lives. For example, since we are not forced to donate our organs to save others' lives, why should a pregnant woman be forced to carry a child that burdens her? By preventing victims of rape and incest from terminating a pregnancy, we infringe on their autonomy and cause unnecessary trauma.