Abortion, Once More

A recent law has passed that restricts abortions to a maximum of 6 weeks into a pregnancy, which is approximately the time frame just before a fetus develops pain-sensing nerves. As suspected, both sides will likely put forth arguments for why this is a good or bad law & neither will be completely satisfied with the result initially. However, both side’s agendas are now satisfied (yet equally failed) to some degree. Pro-Lifers now have the means to limit the occurrence of abortions & fetal suffering entirely. Meanwhile, Pro-Choicers have a guaranteed outlet for receiving an abortion.

This highly divided issue has been assigned a law that does several things in order to achieve the greatest possible degree of happiness amongst the citizenry- I call this ‘utility’. It also creates a middle-ground solution that avoids the problematic occurrence of sophistry. In discussing how utility plays into achieving the greatest degree of pleasure & justice, I, John Stuart Mill, will argue why this law is the perfect approach to the issue of abortion.

Critics of the law contest that neither side will be satisfied by this policy, but by creating a law that satisfies both sides to some degree, a significant degree of virtue is actually invoked. It is my opinion that in order to achieve the ends of happiness and therefore utility, we must seek maximum virtue as a tool to achieve it. I have also pointed out on many occasions that although humanity can agree to some objective truths, we largely disagree about what morality is. In this case, pro-life & pro-choice disagree considerably. As a result, in order to gain the largest degree of virtue, we have to adopt a law such as this one that satisfied both major definitions of morality to some degree.

Everyone law that is written should seek to achieve perfect utility. It can only be achieved by assessing its effects on generating happiness amongst the population. To me, “utility” requires several things, but most importantly avoids pain while striving for the most holistic degree of pleasure or happiness. It requires impartiality & consideration of everyone’s preferences beyond your personal agenda, yet doesn’t completely sacrifice the private realm to achieve this. This law perfectly adheres to these definitions. By eliminating the option to put a fetus that can sense pain through an abortion while still keeping the option available for those who want one, the greatest sense of happiness & least amount of pain is achieved for the largest group of citizens. It is the impartiality of the law that achieves this large degree of pleasure. Finally, the law doesn’t sacrifice any given individual’s private realm at the expense of the citizenry. A full ban on abortion, however, would obstruct the realm of privacy & decrease the number of citizens who achieve the greatest pleasure; the same can be said about a completely unregulated practice of abortions. This middle-ground solution, therefore, has the largest degree of utility because it seeks to make the most voters within the American population happy.

Although I do not intend to argue that certain unchangeable God-given rights exist in the free world such as John Locke or Mary Wollstonecraft might, I do agree that a large degree of rights can lead to greater utility because it derives a sense of pleasure amongst the citizenry in knowing that these liberties exist. Relating this to my previous discussion of varying definitions of morality, we can see how this also closely ties into varying definitions of what is just. Because two major opinions exist regarding what is moral & just, we can rationally conclude that these opinions manifested from two varying rationales on what the utility of abortion is. One side argues that there is a utility in providing options & liberties for women because that increases happiness whereas the other side argues the utility in preserving the future population (and their ability to be happy). So, again, this law expands into the middle and includes both definitions of justice (as well as morality) which maximize utility. To bring this full circle, I believe that society will collapse if the rule of law isn’t followed. So, by creating a law that is broad, we are ensuring that far fewer people will obstruct the law and therefore preserve maximum utility. This ties in perfectly with everything I contend in the third paragraph.

In any case, in light of my argumentation, what this law does best is to expand itself to include tenets from both popular viewpoints regarding abortion. This inclusive structure generates various ways that utility is maximized, including through an invocation of varyin interpretations of morality, justice, impartiality, consideration of avoiding harm or loss of privacy, & several others. All of this leads to an end that, at least on the topic of abortion, provides the greatest degree of pleasure in the public & therefore maximizes utility. I, John Stuart Mill, wholeheartedly endorse this policy in this opinion piece.