- Free newsletter
- The Latest
- Topics
-
About
ChatGPT’s surprising admission on abortion
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.
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.

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis
Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.
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.
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.
How authoritative are products like ChatGPT?
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
Image credit: image of an "abortion clinic" (it looks rather seedy) generated by Pixlr image generator.
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.
-
Nathan Nobis commented 2025-01-20 03:12:17 +1100It sounds like you had a good start here, but didn’t continue to ask it what it said about your claim that “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.” I recently asked ChatGPT about those issues and it reject common anti-abortion claims:
https://www.abortionarguments.com/2025/01/chatgpt-explains-why-common-anti.html
ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken
Anti-abortion advocates often are willfully resistant to learning about abortion and ethics: they often reject distinctions that are widely known among people who have studied the issues, and enthusiastically accept demonstrably bad arguments.
Yet, when this is pointed out and explained, they don’t accept this and revise their views, believe it or not!
With that in mind, I asked ChatGPT some questions on matters where these types of errors are common. ChatGPT agrees that common responses from anti-abortion advocates are mistaken!
How might anti-abortion advocates respond to ChatGPT? Will they see it as being duped by a liberal (or is it conservative?) conspiracy in giving these types of responses? Or will they recognize that ChatGPT has a more “fair and balanced” understanding than they do, and rethink their views?
We might see! Click below for questions and ChatGPT’s responses:
ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a “human being,” or else they are irrational?
Chat GPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a person, or else they are irrational?
ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that an embryo or beginning fetus is a “baby” or a “child” or else they are irrational?
ChatGPT: Mammal’s bodies start at conception or soon after conception. So human mammal’s bodies start at conception or soon after. Does that suggest that abortion is wrong?
ChatGPT: If someone consents to having sex, knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome, does that mean that they consent to that pregnancy?
Chat GPT: Is an embryo comparable to a sleeping person, in that since it’s wrong to kill a sleeping person, is it also wrong to kill an embryo?
What are other questions that should be asked of ChatGPT?
Note: if someone responds, “Whatabout pro-choice people’s misunderstandings???” yes, that indeed is a problem too, but this response is likely an attempt to deflect from the more pressing issue, which is misinformed people promoting unjust laws prohibiting and criminalizing early abortions: laws that criminalize morally permissible behaviors are unjust. -
Anon Emouse commented 2025-01-16 11:33:56 +1100So, we know that things like stress, alcohol, cigarettes negatively impact the development of a fetus – excessive amounts could possibly even lead to a miscarriage.
Trotskylives – how would you feel, in an effort to protect the fetus, to pass legislation to regulate what pregnant women can eat and do? Should we regulate their diet more fully, to ensure that the fetus gets the best nutrients and has the best shot at life? I feel as though we’re doing a disservice if we don’t. -
mrscracker commented 2025-01-15 23:41:04 +1100Thankfully Mr. Mouse I missed most of that era but I do remember in the late 1970s/ early 1980s seeing an older gentleman of African ancestry stepping into the street to let people pass by on the sidewalk. It was a carryover from another time.
Each era brings more enlightenment about human rights reforms I think. Hopefully we’ll continue moving forward in that direction. It doesn’t happen overnight and future generations may look back on us in a similar way that we look back at the errors of our parents and grandparents generations. -
Anon Emouse commented 2025-01-15 22:47:41 +1100Trotsky -
Though, if I had a child and brought them to see Showgirls, or brought them with me every time I wanted to see a particularly violent movie, like The Departed – you might think I was a bad parent. People might try to have the child removed from my care, if I did it enough. Why is a fetus different? -
Anon Emouse commented 2025-01-15 22:45:11 +1100mrscracker,
Tangentially – I always find it humorous of being accused of being part of the “snowflake generation” by elders who would have lost their minds if a black person drank from the wrong fountain -
mrscracker commented 2025-01-15 22:04:09 +1100Just to mention, we have reserved parking places for expectant mothers at some businesses.
Human rights and understanding those takes time. In my parents’ day certain classes of people weren’t allowed inside restaurants and were forced to sit in theatre balconies and the back of the bus. Their right to vote was restricted or denied. They had to step off the sidewalk to let others pass by.
If my parents had asked AI whether that class of people was fully human and deserving of equal rights I wonder what it would have answered? -
Anon Emouse commented 2025-01-15 20:47:35 +1100I notice you didn’t answer any of the other questions, Trotsky ;)
-
Trotsky Lives! commented 2025-01-15 14:00:34 +1100“Can a pregnant woman see an R rated movie? Isn’t that inappropriate for the fetus?” Honestly, that is SUCH a good question. Please go on!
-
Anon Emouse commented 2025-01-15 13:51:16 +1100Can pregnant women use the carpool lane?
Does child support start at fertilization for fathers?
Am I allowed to take out life insurance on a fetus in case of a miscarriage?
Can a woman have her bodily autonomy forcibly taken away from her by the act of rape, because it protects the fetus?
Should pregnant women pay for an extra seat on airplanes because they’re carrying an extra human?
Could a pregnant woman be put in jail, since that’s wrongful imprisonment of the fetus?
Can a pregnant woman see an R rated movie? Isn’t that inappropriate for the fetus?
That’s only scratching the surface of the logical and ethical implications posed by this logic. I could go on -
Paul Bunyan commented 2025-01-15 10:30:25 +1100Not at all, Mr Faehrmann. Even if we give a fertilized egg all the rights of a born human being from the time of conception, that doesn’t give it the right to use someone else’s body without their ongoing consent.
That was the analogy I was trying to make when I used blood and organ donation. -
mrscracker commented 2025-01-15 01:54:22 +1100Mr. Bunyan, in the case of one’s own body what you say is generally correct. But the whole point of the article is that even AI confirms there are at least two separate, genetically distinct lives in a pregnancy. A child developing in its mother’s womb is not one of her organs & may even have a differing blood type.
-
Peter Faehrmann commented 2025-01-15 01:34:10 +1100Or perhaps Paul Bunyan, you are showing your inconsistency; i.e. denying that the preterm individual is human. The genome proves the humanity of the embryo/fetus/baby.
-
Paul Bunyan commented 2025-01-14 14:10:40 +1100Nonsense. No one is forced to donate blood, even though the risks are much lower than pregnancy and childbirth.
And organs are not collected from corpses without their pre-death consent. Your position is inconsistent. -