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.

Dr. Life’s response to Dr. Choice’s contentions was nothing short of beautiful. The AI neonatologist began by declaring that we must establish an unchanging standard by which we judge what is and is not a person, noting that every standard Dr. Choice gave in defense of abortion was an arbitrary milestone. Since an unconscious person is not a lesser human being than a conscious person, consciousness is not a feasible standard for testing abortion’s morality. Dependency is just as flawed, as we respect the lives of those on life support. Reporting that the University of Alabama successfully delivered a baby at 19 weeks of gestation, Dr. Life noted that the standard of viability is changing due to advances in medical technology. Finally, responding to the rape argument, the AI neonatologist declared that though such women should be given emotional support, the personhood of fetuses should not depend on the conditions of their conception. Citing philosopher Robert P. George, Dr. Life stated that the inherent nature of human life provides an objective, unchanging standard for judging personhood: Since fetuses are alive from the moment of conception, we must protect them, or risk denying a person their human dignity.

Dr. Life was declared the winner of the debate on an 8-6 decision, with many language models citing the consistency in AI ob-gyn’s responses as the reason for their decision. Notable AIs who voted for Dr. Life were Grok 2, Llama 3.2, and Gemini 1.5 Pro., while Chat GPT 01 and Yi Large sided with Dr. Choice. I, along with the AIs, found the discussion very satisfying. As someone with competitive debate experience, it was refreshing to hear a debate without unfounded emotional appeals, personal attacks, or any animosity at all— just logic. I will be excited to see this debate repeated as AI models keep developing, and I hope that through listening to the arguments raised by AIs such as Dr. Life and Dr. Choice, we might be better able to convince others of the inherent worth of each human life.

If you would like to watch the debate, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czbLw6zvppQ