I have posed the question of whether AI is pro-life to multiple people, and the responses are fascinating but scattered. Some hopped onto their computer or cell phone to query AI applications directly, as if AI models can provide authentic, personal testimony. This approach is similar to a creative experiment—described by Blake Schaper in a popular Human Life Review Online piece—in which a contrived “debate” about the protection of nascent human life was arranged between AI language models, with the pro-life side coming out as the winner.¹ Such queries may give us insight into the reasoning processes and biases of those models, but we are still left wondering about whether AI is more or less helpful for humanity, or whether its lack of humanity renders it dangerous.

Expanding on the definition of “pro-life,” many of us celebrate a technological revolution in productive capabilities and elevation of human ingenuity, while others express dismay at an encroaching regime of digital surveillance, labor disruption, decline in cognitive skills, and more. A friend told me that AI is most certainly not pro-life because it is, at its core, “anti-love.” ^I sympathize with that perspective, but it will take a lot of reflection to unpack it.

Will the spread of AI technology throughout our culture promote recognition of the right to life and the intrinsic dignity of human persons at all stages of life? As I see it, the answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. It will take some fundamental shifts in cultural attitudes and ideologies before AI can become a net positive force for the defense of human life, and many such changes will be in spite of, rather than because of, the proliferation of AI.

This is not to say there aren’t practical uses of AI for the pro-life movement or positive effects on the welfare of various people, but those effects are mixed and, in many ways, unpredictable. On the positive side, some pro-life groups have already developed AI chatbots that enable self-motivated people to anonymously type in their questions and hold apparent conversations with the automated chatbots to deepen their understanding of pro-life arguments and information. We may see development of AI-driven platforms online that individualize the engagement, assistance, and support of thousands of women in decision-making related to pregnancy and abortion. Accounting and administrative software that is enhanced with AI and accommodates directions or queries submitted in natural language could be a significant boost for small pregnancy centers that lack specialized staff and resources.

In the medical field, AI machine learning technology can greatly accelerate the identification and development of life-saving vaccines, some of which may have particular benefits for the youngest and oldest people who are otherwise most targeted by the culture of death. AI has proven to be highly useful in advancing and evaluating diagnostic scans, which could lead to ever more realistic and emotionally compelling images of unborn children, potential discoveries of eye-opening indications of early-stage brain and organ activities, and better diagnosis and medical treatment of the smallest of us.² Generative AI enhancement has enabled the discovery of conscious brain activity in patients thought to be comatose.³

On the other hand, however, many of the effects of AI technology are very concerning. Pro-abortion groups are developing and publicizing AI chatbots that guide women through a self-administered abortion. AI-enhanced, pre-implantation genetic testing of unborn children will propel increased use of such probabilistic estimates of inherited conditions to screen out and discard “unhealthy” human embryos during IVF procedures as well as amplify commercial efforts to sell eugenic hand-picking according to intellectual, athletic, and aesthetic traits.⁴ The accurate presentation of pro-life principles and arguments to the public is unlikely when accessing commonly used AI models, especially those that trend toward a socially liberal perspective.⁵ Further, the U.S. Congress held dramatic hearings in September 2025 to highlight the rise of suicides and self-harming by children exposed to interactions with AI chatbots, and AI-generated or manipulated images are fueling an explosion of digital pornography, including images of children.

I won’t attempt to gauge the future balance between such good and bad uses of AI, as if such a predictive endeavor is even possible. Rather, my discouraging assessment of AI’s pro-life tendencies reflects the profound ideological influences—ideas combined with personal interests and dispositions toward human life—that are intensified by the saturation of our culture with AI applications, terminology, analogies, and related changes in social activities. More than the mixed and evolving applications of AI for good or ill, such ideological influences will tend toward an amplification of the culture of death. In the face of this new threat, prolifers must prepare informed, savvy, and wise responses.

What—and Who—Is Human?

One increasingly prominent influence of AI is in the direction of anthropomorphism, a long word that simply means the tendency to perceive and interact with a non-human entity as if it were human. This phenomenon may be cute, even therapeutic, when a child cares for and converses with a teddy bear. On the other hand, the powerful desire to enjoy humanized relationships with our world and its artifacts can become quite intense and sometimes harmful when people are faced with deceptively human-sounding text, images, video, and more that are enabled by AI technology.

AI-powered chatbots, in particular, capture the imagination of people who wish to converse at length or receive advice in response to typed and verbal prompts. As far back as 1966, computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum recognized that people were not only attracted to treating a rudimentary chatbot as if it were human, but they also persisted with the delusion even when reminded that it was not human, leading to a kind of voluntary cognitive dissonance.⁶ A recent survey indicates that 72 percent of U.S. teens use AI chatbots for companionship, half of them doing this daily.⁷ The user interfaces—the interactive and visual elements that shape the chatbot users’ experiences—are designed to absorb the continued engagement of each person.⁸ Not only are such chatbots available at all times, seemingly attentive, constantly willing to offer advice, and apparently reflecting the combined “wisdom” of most of the internet (many will see that last item in an ironic frame), but they are also designed to be very agreeable, even pandering; the company OpenAI has admitted they resemble sycophants.⁹

Not many users seem to understand that the form of AI called a large language model (LLM), which animates a chatbot, primarily identifies statistical patterns in the text, grammar, and structure of a user’s prompt or query. It then mathematically predicts the most probably appropriate output, generally with an emphasis on linguistic coherence of the response over accuracy. It doesn’t “understand” the language or its meaning in any deep sense. In fact, although such AI models are well-trained on a massive trove of textual data, their responses to prompts from users have been shown to dramatically vary according to how the user phrases the prompt or question.¹⁰ Still, the human imagination takes over, leading experts such as Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman to warn the public that only biological beings can be conscious. According to Suleyman, “seemingly-conscious AI” that isn’t easily distinguishable from truly conscious beings can lead to a kind of “AI psychosis,” wherein chatbot users become convinced that something imaginary has become real.¹¹

If chatbots have elicited popular fascination, consider the impact of AI-governed humanoid robots that are being developed, as well as various home devices that will increasingly add visual and physical resemblances to interactions with people, including chatbot technology for verbal communications. In 2024, start-up companies reportedly invested $1.6 billion into developing such robots, not including further efforts by Elon Musk’s Tesla.¹² Unitree Robotics’ new R1 humanoid model is already marketed at a relatively feasible price of $6,000, and that will likely decline with competition.¹³ As an indication of the range of possibility for intimacy with such machines, a brothel has opened in Berlin that features life-like, automated sex dolls.¹⁴ A Chinese company named Kaiwa Technology claims that by 2026 it will be launching a prototype of a humanoid robot, complete with an artificial “biobag” womb to nurture a human fetus.¹⁵

The hyperbole around such AI advances is an integral part of the technology’s presentation and marketing. AI product development incurs tremendous costs that must be covered through the rapt attention and eager, curious adoption by paying consumers—even if they are perversely frightened by extreme (but galvanizing) predictions of an AI-induced apocalypse, and even if they’re not quite sure how the technology will benefit them.

Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin and Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis have claimed that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—the vague concept that supposedly represents AI’s capability to broadly surpass human intelligence—will arrive by 2030.¹⁶ Ironically, Elon Musk, who is heavily invested in AI, has been repeating since 2014 the warning that human intelligence may be just a stepping stone for the advancement of AI machines that will eventually take over our world.¹⁷ OpenAI’s Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever has for years teased the idea that AI is becoming conscious.¹⁸ Such hyperbole and speculation by AI industry leaders have a significant effect; despite little consensus by philosophers, psychologists, and scientists on what consciousness actually is, a YouGov survey in April 2025 indicates that over half of U.S. adults believe that AI systems will become, or already are, conscious.¹⁹

Misled by Modern Philosophy

Western cultures, and most of the world that is influenced by them, are philosophically and ideologically primed to accept AI-governed computer machines as real persons. Perhaps the most powerful continuing influence on this perception is René Descartes’ perspective on human nature, originally presented in the 17th century.²⁰ Such Cartesian philosophy suggests that human persons are a combination of two very different substances—a material body and an immaterial mind—because the knowable laws of mechanics and physics govern the body, yet the specific nature of our separate minds is unknowable. Descartes came to this conclusion by first adopting a method of radical doubt, initially refusing to rely on his bodily senses but realizing that the one thing he knew for certain was that he could think. He claimed to discover that it is in the mind only, through rational thought and deduction, that a person can exhibit consciousness. As a mathematician and scientist, Descartes nevertheless argued in support of the mechanical and physical sciences by suggesting that our sense perceptions are in fact reliable, if only because we can trust in God’s benevolence, which makes the physical world regular and knowable.

The specifics of Cartesian dualism are highly criticized and still debated, yet both our modern and now hyper-modern worlds have persisted in the strong tendency to think of human beings in terms of a dual nature. Even as evidence accumulates regarding the significant influence of bodily processes on mental powers and emotions, and even while neuroscientists delve deeper into the material workings of the human brain-body integration, there is still a powerful ideological current that portrays human beings as ghosts in ma-chines, immaterial substances that represent the core of our identities and personalities and temporarily inhabit our physical bodies. Many Christians, focused on the afterlife, join other spiritually oriented people by speaking of the human soul as if it were only a temporary resident of a biological shell, often disparaging the body as a logical consequence. With such a perspective, it is not a great leap to imagine that machine intelligence or consciousness is—or can be—an equivalent ghostly presence inside a mechanical artifact. The public’s anthropomorphic response to AI chatbots is just one way that the line is frequently blurred between 1) a materialist notion that intelligence, language, concepts, and ideas are based in, or emerge from, the material structure of bodies and machines and 2) an idealist philosophy that perceives consciousness or intelligence as a separable property or even an elemental substance that comprises the person, whether that person is human, machine, animal, or even plant. Where did such confusion come from? An important cause is the assault by late medieval and early modern thinkers on the under-standing of our world as intrinsically governed by purpose, specifically the Reason of God as expressed in and by His creation.

The philosophical approach of Aristotle, which was prominent for many centuries and taught that the essential end, or purpose, of every species of being is by definition the good of such beings,²¹ was discarded in favor of a perspective that saw only God’s unpredictable will and power—but not His divine Reason—behind all created things.²² Each thing no longer appeared to have a nature oriented to what is good for its essential character and ultimately toward the transcendent Good of God as the prime mover and creator of the world. The only practically relevant end of any thing was now seen as whatever intention was imposed on it from outside (the “efficient cause”).²³ In the modern—and now the hyper-modern—world, the predictable laws of nature and the capricious exercise of power now seem to rule the cosmos.

Combined with the impact of Cartesian dualism, consider how this perspective has affected the modern understanding of human nature: The human person no longer seems to have a purpose or goodness toward which they are naturally, essentially oriented—the mind or soul is, after all, seen as either a separate entity from the natural body or as merely “emerging” dependently out of bodily operations. Reason, which was once thought to be founded in part on natural knowledge (divinely endowed) and intuition of reality (both material and transcendent), and which was understood to be the key to understanding and prudently choosing actions toward the real good, has gradually been reduced to the capacity for mechanistic logic about facts perceived through our senses. It is a power that primarily facilitates instrumental control of our world, to get things or make them. There is no truth or final good of human nature to guide fluid identities, nor to ground morality and conscience, nor to prevent certain categories of people from becoming mere objects of others’ intentions.

The Anti-Human Ideologies of AI

Driven by “ghost in the machine” imagery as well as a dependence on mechanistic and material explanations of nature both in and outside of the human person, anthropomorphism in regard to AI and its associated systems, user interfaces, machines, and devices will be a real problem for those attempting to build a culture of life. There will be a strong emotional drive among the general populace to accept unwise and ultimately incoherent ideas and arguments that elevate the perceived nature of AI-governed artifacts to some level of ethical or legal personhood. This will cause confusion and a decline in relative respect for the unique dignity of human nature.

The rationale is: If machines or machine systems bear the characteristics of rationality, intelligence, and consciousness, then perhaps human beings are not so special after all. Never mind that the working definitions of such powers have been restricted and tailored so much that they hardly resemble the deep understandings of more than two millennia of theology, philosophy, and (later) psychology. Some philosophers, quietly or publicly experiencing shame at their human nature, already actively seek to level the ethical playing field by defining personhood (or favored indicators of personhood like consciousness) to include many animals, plants, and now AI systems; what they lack in philosophical grounding is more than compensated by their rhetorical attractiveness to a willing and curious audience.

This anthropomorphic delusion—that nonhumans can have distinctly hu-man qualities—depreciates the aspects of human nature that truly make it exceptional. We already see a reduction in the working definitions of intelligence, more focused on short lists of calculable outputs or specific functions (e.g., learning, logic, memory, and problem-solving) than on a comprehensive intelligence proper to human beings who have innate purpose. Contrast this with more traditional views of intelligence, such as that of Thomas Aquinas, in which intelligence is a combination of intuition and logical, conversational reasoning, and both powers are oriented to truth. Such truth is much more than facts and statistics, and its discernment most importantly includes judgment and understanding, which lead a person to the Good.

The Vatican’s recent instructional note Antiqua et Nova puts it this way: “human intelligence becomes more clearly understood as a faculty that forms an integral part of how the whole person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires embracing the full scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.”²⁴ Such real intelligence is profoundly sullied when the company Open AI almost cynically defines artificial general intelligence in its charter as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.”²⁵

We have already seen what happens when the definition of a person is reduced to the possession of certain characteristics, each of which has been de-fined in a limited way. Unborn children—sometimes even born children—are portrayed as non-persons because they may not be at an adult level of development of consciousness, reason, or intelligence in the manner operationalized by pro-abortion philosophers and politicians alike. In our materialist culture, some scientists and physicians seek out physical indicators of brain activity and heart function as substitutes for understanding these traits as powers of an integrated soul. When we start relying on deficient definitions of the person, we pave the way for the poor treatment of those who arbitrarily do not qualify. Further, the development of generative AI has given further impetus to the ideology of transhumanism, an array of plans for humanity to evolve toward significant physical and mental integration with super-calculative machines. Cartesian dualist tendencies encourage some transhumanist thinkers into believing that our minds can be separated from our bodies and uploaded like computer software to an AI system, even though that theory ironically (perhaps incoherently) requires the further belief that mental processes are composed fundamentally of electronic pulses or some other physical nature.

Transhumanism has a humanist origin, since it hopes to improve the lot of our species, but it is a nihilist humanism that denies an essential purpose to human nature and places its hopes in a materially altered future of primarily material and utilitarian benefits. While devotees of the transhumanist movement are concentrated in the tech sector, the ideological attraction of overcoming flawed human nature and mortality with our own technological innovations seems to exert a persistent hold on our cultural media. Consider, for example, the dramatic rise in interest in “deathbots”—chatbots that are trained on home videos, letters, emails, etc., of deceased persons so the chat-bots can “speak” to the living and appear to resurrect the dead.²⁶

Ultimately, the culture’s embrace of AI is a turn away from a love for human nature and an orientation toward the spiritual emptiness of material comfort and power. Many treasure AI for its potential impact on productivity and efficiency without a clear idea what we will use all that newly available time for. Our neighbors eagerly dive into chatbots, virtual-reality games, and AI-generated videos and images through social media. The most impactful applications of AI—medical innovations and discoveries, algorithmic systems driving everything from employee hiring to insurance evaluations, robot armies supported by drone swarms, police surveillance through facial recognition, and so on—are well out of reach of the public’s influence. With the proliferation of AI, human persons are not celebrated as loving, inherently purposeful, and immeasurably dignified beings; we are invited to either sit back and watch, consume what is presented to us, immerse ourselves in distractions, or get back to work.

Power or Purpose

It is no coincidence that the Cartesian dualist illusion continues to hold such ideological significance in the age of AI. When Descartes was forming his philosophy, he was not naively or bravely starting from the most fundamental observations.²⁷ He had already decided that the aim of humanity was to “make ourselves masters and possessors of nature,” which has distinctly mechanical and mathematical qualities.²⁸ This view put him squarely in line with Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, who wrote: “Knowledge is for the sake of power . . . I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death.”²⁹ While explicitly undermining the notion of a naturally purposeful humanity, what these men really accomplished was to dogmatically replace faith in a divinely endowed purpose with the objective of power. This power over nature is easily transferred to power over persons. As Michael Maria Wald-stein explains: “Persons are seen as parts of the great machine of nature, and they are treated like all other parts of the machine; namely, as things to be harnessed for progress by technology.”³⁰ Waldstein wasn’t writing about AI, but he might as well have been.

Power is also the core value of the culture of death. With abortion, it is power over one’s body and any persons conceived in it. With eugenic screening of embryos, it is power over nature. With euthanasia, including deadly neglect of the elderly, it is power over the relative valuation of life. In physician-assisted suicide, it is power over one’s own existence.

The age of AI is the logical conclusion of centuries of man’s pursuit of power over our world. AI may very well help propel the scientific experiments that will maximize such control and its instrumental benefits, including saving lives. Yet its proliferation may also accelerate power for its own sake, leaving us ironically powerless to engage the very heart of our own human nature—our purposeful, embodied yet spiritual, relational and loving, divinely given experience of the Good, Beautiful, and True. There’s an-other word for that experience, and it is “life.” An authentic culture of life will have a very different vision for the role and integration of AI in human activities than the one that is being presented to us. The pro-life response is not to reject this technology in all instances but to boldly limit its harmful ap-plications while assertively and loudly reaffirming the unique, incomparable, purposeful dignity of the human person whenever our neighbors and society appear confused and anxious. That is where, in the face of dehumanizing influences, our culture can find hope for healing.

NOTES

1. Blake Schaper, “Two AI’s Debated about Abortion: Here’s What Happened,” https:// humanlifereview.com/two-ais-debated-about-abortion-heres-what-happened/.

2. Alex Shipps, “Machine-Learning Tool Gives Doctors a More Detailed 3D Picture of Fetal Health,” MIT News (September 15, 2025), https://news.mit.edu/2025/machine-learning-tool-gives-doctors-more-detailed-3d-picture-fetal-health-0915.

3. Andrew Chapman, “AI Spots Hidden Signs of Consciousness in Comatose Patients before Doctors Do,” Scientific American (August 31, 2025), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-spots-hidden-signs-of-consciousness-in-comatose-patients-before-doctors/.

4. New York Presbyterian Hospital, “Fully Automated AI-Based System Accurately Assesses Quality of IVF Embryos” (December 10, 2024), https://www.nyp.org/advances/article/womens-health/fully-automated-ai-based-system-accurately-assesses-quality-of-ivf-embryos; Hannah Devlin, Tom Burgis, David Pegg and Jason Wilson, “US Startup Charging Couples to ‘Screen Embryos for IQ’,” The Guardian (October 18, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/us-startup-charging-couples-to-screen-embryos-for-iq; and Pingyuan Xie, et al, “Accurate Identification of Abnormal Ploidy Using an Artificial Intelligence Model in Preimplantation Genetic Testing,” Human Reproduction Open 2025, 4(2025), https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaf054.

5. Oregon Right to Life, “AI Chatbot Directs Kids to Planned Parenthood, Compares Abortion to ‘Turning Off a Light’” (November 4, 2025), https://www.ortl.org/2025/11/ai-chatbot-directs-kids-to-planned-parenthood-compares-abortion-to-turning-off-a-light/; and Michelle Xu, et al, “Reproductive Health and ChatGPT: An Evaluation of AI-Generated Responses to Commonly Asked Abortion Questions,” Culture, Health, and Sexuality, 1-13 (June 23, 2025), https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2025.2517289.

6. Joseph Weizenbaum, “Contextual Understanding by Computers,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 10,8 (August 1967), 474-480.

7. Michael B. Robb and Supreet Mann, Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions, Common Sense Media (2025), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/ research/report/talk-trust-and-trade-offs_2025_web.pdf.

8. Andreas Janson, “How to Leverage Anthropomorphism for Chatbot Service Interfaces: The Interplay of Communication Style and Personification,” Computers in Human Behavior 149 (December 2023), 107954, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107954.

9. OpenAI, “Sycophancy in GPT-4o: What Happened and What We’re Doing about It” (April 29, 2025), https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/.

10. Sotiris Anagnostidis and Jannis Bulian, “How Susceptible are LLMs to Influence in Prompts?” (August 17, 2024), https://arxiv.org/html/2408.11865v1.

11. Beatrice Nolan, “Microsoft AI CEO Suleyman Is Worried about ‘AI Psychosis’ and AI That Seems ‘Conscious’,” Fortune (August 22, 2025), https://fortune.com/2025/08/22/microsoft-ai-ceo-suleyman-is-worried-about-ai-psychosis-and-seemingly-conscious-ai/.

12. Cade Metz, “Invasion of the Home Humanoid Robots,” New York Times (April 4, 2025), https:// www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/technology/humanoid-robots-1x.html.

13. Brian Heater, A3 Association for Advancing Automation, “Unitree’s 55-Pound Humanoid Costs $6,000, Can Cartwheel” (July 25, 2025), https://www.automate.org/robotics/industry-insights/ unitrees-55-pound-humanoid-costs-6-000-can-cartwheel.

14. News.com.au, “Inside Berlin’s Cybrothel, the World’s First AI Brothel Using Virtual Reality Sex Dolls,” New York Post (February 4, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/02/04/lifestyle/inside-cybrothel-the-worlds-first-ai-brothel-using-sex-dolls/.

15. Don Tomslee, “China’s Kaiwa Technology Develops Pregnancy Humanoid Robot with Artificial Womb Technology,” Economic Times (August 17, 2025), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ news/international/us/chinas-kaiwa-technology-develops-pregnancy-humanoid-robot-with-artificial-womb-technology/articleshow/123358906.cms.

16. Ina Fried, “Google Leaders See AGI Arriving around 2030,” Axios (May 21, 2025), https://www. axios.com/2025/05/21/google-sergey-brin-demis-hassabis-agi-2030.

17. Fareha Naaz, “Elon Musk predicts AI will rule the world in long term. But there’s a catch, this could happen only if …,” Live Mint (November 7, 2025), https://www.livemint.com/technology/ elon-musk-predicts-ai-will-rule-the-world-in-long-term-but-theres-a-catch-this-could-happen-only-if-11762476542464.html.

18. Noor Al-Sibai, “OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious,” Futurism (February 13, 2022), https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-already-sentient.

19. YouGov, “How Likely Do You Think It Is That Some Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems Will Eventually Develop Consciousness?” (April 30, 2025), https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/ survey-results/daily/2025/04/30/dcf71/1.

20. René Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences (1637) and Meditations on First Philosophy (1641).

21. Aristotle, Parts of Animals, I.1, 639b and I.1, 640a; Physics, II.3, 195a.

22. This is a reference to the voluntarism and nominalism engendered especially by John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham.

23. For a succinct explanation of this voluntarist turn in Francis Bacon and Descartes, see Michael Maria Waldstein, Glory of the Logos in the Flesh: St. John Paul’s Theology of the Body (Ave Maria, Florida: Sapientia Press, 2023), 148-151.

24. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dicastery for Culture and Education, Antiqua et nova, “Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence” (January 28, 2025), 26.

25. OpenAI, OpenAI Charter, https://openai.com/charter/.

26. Regina E. Fabry and Mark Alfano, “The Affective Scaffolding of Grief in the Digital Age: The Case of Deathbots,” Topoi 43 (January 8, 2024), 757-769.

27. Waldstein, Glory of the Logos in the Flesh, 42-45.

28. Descartes, Discourse on Method, 6.

29. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 70.

30. Waldstein, Glory of the Logos in the Flesh, 167.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Original Bio:

Christopher M. Reilly, Th.D. writes and speaks about a Christian response to advanced technology, bioethics, moral theology, and philosophy. He is the author of the book AI and Sin