Abortion as a right is a two-sided coin: On one side, the mother’s livelihood is typically harmed if she has a child. On the other side, a potential child is prevented from living out a potentially successful future. Which option affects society in the worst way?
First, the circumstances in which an abortion would be performed must be limited. The women who require an abortion for emergency medical purposes should not be considered. If a mother chooses to abort her child in this situation she will live, and the baby will not. If she chooses not to abort the baby, she and the child may both die. Because the second option causes more long-term harm (i.e. death), That would almost never be a reasonable action to take.
If, instead of the procedure being medically necessary for the health of both parties, the mother simply did not want to have a child, there are a few other factors to consider: The main factor that is relevant to society are the income and marital status of the mother. Most women who have abortions are single and of low to average income. It is important to note that the necessity of an income is diminished if one’s spouse participates in raising the household income. This way, a woman can have a child and not have a job, but still maintain the least harm due to her spouse’s income.
In a typical scenario in which a mother has a low-income job and is single, she has the option to either abort or go through with her pregnancy. If she chooses to abort the child, she will not have to leave her job. This means she can continue moving up in said job, have more income later, and ultimately contribute more to society because of this. However, her child will be prevented from potentially adding greatly to society. This child could have been a president or a homeless person, regardless of how likely one thing or the other is, anything was possible until nothing was.
But say the mother chose not to abort her child. She is then left with two other options: give up the child or keep it. If she chooses to keep the child, she must then give up her job and live on welfare. Additionally, children born to low-income, single mothers are much less likely to succeed. This is the greatest harm. The mother, child, and society all suffer from this option.
Alternatively, the mother could give up the child to a relative or put them up for adoption. In this case, the mother can continue to work and contribute to society as she would if she had an abortion, and society would benefit from this. However, the child would still be less likely to succeed and contribute to society apart from both of their biological parents. Others in society must also give the child opportunity to succeed, which hurts society. This option seems to have the most utility though, because the mother, child, and society all benefit more than in an abortion.
Based solely on utility, Abortion is the best option unless all the typical, low-income, single mothers choose to give up their child. The likelihood of these options happening in a society should determine what laws are made in that region. If the proposed single, low-income women are less likely to give up their children after birth and instead live on welfare, abortion has more utility. Conversely, if they give up their child, abortion has less utility for that society.