(Mercator) As a philosophy teacher specializing in knowledge and logic, I have always been fascinated by how reasoning shapes our understanding of complex issues. My curiosity led me to interview ChatGPT, treating it as both a subject of study and a conversational partner. The goal was to explore its thought process across 25 topics ranging from politics to philosophy and social issues.
While many discussions were insightful, the AI responses about abortion were especially thought-provoking. To my surprise, ChatGPT admitted that abortion is the termination of a living human organism—a significant acknowledgment. It warrants closer examination.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
The interview began with a foundational question: What is the nature of the entity within the mother’s womb? I deliberately used the term "entity" to avoid preconceived judgments. ChatGPT unequivocally affirmed that the zygote, embryo, and fetus are all biologically living organisms. It explained that these entities exhibit the characteristics of life—cellular growth, metabolism, and responsiveness to their environment. Science clearly distinguishes between living and non-living, and ChatGPT’s response confirmed that what exists in the womb is indisputably alive.
Satisfied with this answer, I pressed further: If abortion ends this life, does it not destroy a living organism? ChatGPT admitted, “Yes, from a biological standpoint, an abortion involves the termination of a living organism.” It was striking to hear this confirmation, as it aligned with scientific consensus.
However, ChatGPT began to distance itself from the moral implications of this acknowledgment, noting that societal and legal perspectives often prioritize other considerations, such as privacy.
Next, I sought clarity on whether this living organism is human.
ChatGPT provided an unequivocal answer: the entity within the womb is not only alive but also distinctly human. It pointed to DNA as the defining evidence, explaining that the genetic makeup of a human zygote, embryo, or fetus is unique to our species. This genetic identity, combined with a human-specific developmental trajectory, leaves no room for doubt. Hands instead of paws, legs instead of fins—everything about this entity’s growth confirms its humanity.
But there was more. ChatGPT further acknowledged that this human organism is not only alive and human but also uniquely individual. The DNA of the fetus is distinct from both the mother and father, marking it as a separate being. With rare exceptions, such as identical twins, no two humans share the same genetic code. This individuality underscores the gravity of what is at stake in the abortion debate.
Having established these points, I returned to the central question: What does this mean for abortion?
ChatGPT confirmed that abortion is the termination of a living human organism. Here is what it said:
"While it is scientifically established that a zygote, embryo, and fetus are living organisms and are human, the use of the term "baby" for these stages can be more contentious and is often influenced by ethical, emotional, and legal considerations. The destruction of these stages in the context of abortion is understood as the termination of a human living organism. However, the broader ethical and legal implications of this fact remain subjects of significant debate and vary depending on cultural, religious, and individual beliefs" (emphasis added).
Despite this, it carefully avoided taking a stance on the moral implications, emphasizing the complexity of balancing rights and ethical considerations. It cited societal frameworks that often prioritize the autonomy and privacy of the mother over the rights of the unborn.
I found this response unsatisfying. Once it is established that the entity within the womb is a living, human, and uniquely individual organism, the right to life must take precedence. From my perspective, no personal hardship or inconvenience—whether financial, emotional, or otherwise—justifies overriding the right to life.
To illustrate, we would never accept the termination of an elderly or disabled person’s life simply because their care infringed upon someone else’s privacy. The same principle must apply to the unborn.
In conclusion, my dialogue with ChatGPT reaffirmed what science has long established: abortion involves the termination of a living, human, and uniquely individual organism.
Tweet This: ChatGPT reaffirmed what science has long established:abortion involves the termination of a living, human, and uniquely individual organism.
While ChatGPT’s neutral stance highlights the ongoing debate, its admissions provide a clear scientific foundation. As a philosopher and teacher, I believe this evidence compels us to reconsider the ethical and moral implications of abortion. The humanity of the unborn cannot be denied, and our societal priorities must reflect this truth.
Editor's note: George Matwijec is an adjunct philosophy teacher at Immaculata University who specializes in teaching knowledge and logic. He authored a book entitled “My Interview with AI”. He can be reached at iteacher101.com. This article was published by Mercator and is reprinted with permission.
