The hypocrisy of condemning ending one’s life yet defending the killing of the unborn

A brewing controversy has erupted after a Ukrainian teenage girl reportedly accused ChatGPT of giving her tips on how to end her life.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

She had apparently been confiding in the AI tool over her depression, and when she asked for ways to commit suicide, the AI allegedly provided suggestions.

The story has triggered outrage, with many calling for stricter safeguards to ensure that artificial intelligence never provides such guidance again.

At face value, the outrage is understandable.

No technology should ever encourage anyone to take their own life.

Those struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts need compassion, counseling, and hope — not instructions on how to die.

Every person in such darkness deserves the chance to choose life, to rediscover their worth and purpose.

Ending one’s life should never be encouraged under any circumstances.

Yet, beneath the noise lies a far deeper moral contradiction that society seems either blind to or unwilling to face.

We live in an age where the slogan “my body, my choice” has become almost sacred — used to defend what is claimed to be a fundamental right over one’s own body.

And yet, when an adult decides to end their life, the same principle suddenly disappears.

How is it that society so loudly celebrates a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy — effectively ending the development of another human being — but furiously condemns an adult who chooses to end their own life?

Why is the “my body, my choice” mantra only convenient in one context but taboo in the other?

If autonomy over one’s body truly is a universal right, then shouldn’t the same logic apply to those who wish to end their own lives?

The hypocrisy here is glaring.

In both cases, a life is being ended.

Those who choose suicide end their own lives.

Those who choose abortion end the life of a developing human being within them.

Yet, the world condemns the first and normalizes the second.

Society seems to believe that the fetus is not a real human being simply because it is still at an early stage of development.

That argument is not only weak but disingenuous.

A fetus, even in its earliest form, is already on an irreversible trajectory of becoming a human being.

It is not a stagnant or dead thing.

It is not like a sperm or an ovum, which on their own cannot become a person.

The moment conception occurs, life begins — a process of continuous growth and development towards full humanity.

To terminate that process is to end the life of a human being still under formation.

Whether that fetus has developed a heartbeat or not, it is alive and moving towards the stage where it will be recognizably human.

To destroy it is to destroy a human being in the making.

This should never be reduced to the simplistic argument of a woman’s right over her own body, because the developing fetus is not part of her body.

It may reside within her, but it is a separate being with its own genetic identity, its own potential, and — most importantly — its own right to life.

To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

The fetus is not a mere organ of the mother that she can remove at will; it is another person in the making.

So the question then becomes: who speaks for that defenseless life?

Who protects its right to continue existing?

If we can express such moral outrage over an AI allegedly giving advice to someone who wants to end their own life, why do we not express the same outrage over countless abortions that deliberately end the lives of unborn babies?

Both acts terminate life — the difference is only in whose life is being ended.

Suicide ends the life of a person who has chosen death for themselves.

Abortion ends the life of someone who has not chosen death, and who cannot even plead for the chance to live.

If anything, abortion is a far greater moral tragedy because it silences an innocent life before it ever has the opportunity to speak.

It is therefore hypocritical for society to act shocked that a machine may have assisted someone in ending their own life, yet remain utterly silent when millions of unborn lives are intentionally destroyed every year under the banner of “reproductive rights.”

Both acts are fundamentally about ending human life, but one is condemned while the other is dressed up as freedom and choice.

This double standard exposes the moral confusion of our age.

We claim to value life, but only selectively.

We insist that life is sacred when it is an adult’s — but expendable when it is still in the womb.

We argue that no one has the right to take their own life because life is precious — and then in the next breath, we say a woman has the right to take the life of her unborn child because it is “her body.”

We cannot have it both ways.

The truth is that every human being, born or unborn, has an inherent right to life.

That right is not dependent on stage of development, size, or dependency.

It is not conditional upon whether society recognizes it or not.

Once life has begun, it deserves to be protected, not rationalized away.

If we truly care about life, then our moral concern should be consistent.

We cannot condemn a suicidal person for wanting to end their own life, yet defend the ending of another life simply because it has not yet fully developed.

Life, in all its stages, is sacred — whether it belongs to the woman, the man, or the unborn child.

That is why just as those contemplating suicide must be given counseling, compassion, and a path back to life, so too should those considering abortion.

They should be offered the emotional, medical, and social support needed to choose life — for themselves and for their unborn children.

If a pregnancy involves severe medical complications that endanger the mother or the baby, such cases must be approached with care and compassion — not as routine justifications for ending life, but as heartbreaking exceptions handled with moral responsibility.

Perhaps what this controversy truly exposes is not the failure of artificial intelligence, but the failure of human morality.

We have built a world that cannot decide when life begins or when it matters, and that inconsistency is slowly eroding our collective conscience.

If we are going to preach “my body, my choice,” then let us be honest enough to admit that this slogan cannot justify taking another’s life — even one still growing silently in the womb.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/