The subject of this essay is the limit of government exercise of its will over a pregnant individual, and its use of a general decision to decide the common good in all cases. The expectation of happiness for a developing fetus cannot be foreseen; therefore, consideration of the fetus’ happiness is neutral. A heartbeat does not equate to consciousness. We know that this occurs when people have brain stem injuries and have no consciousness, yet they still have a heartbeat and can be removed from life support, comparable to an abortion post-heartbeat but pre-consciousness. The ambiguity of consciousness precludes any generalized rules forcing or preventing abortions on obscure timelines, such as the 6-week law.
Furthermore, since there is no immediate happiness that exists within an unconscious being, the immediate happiness of the mother and others involved are the secondary concern, while the primary concern is society as a whole— the happiness of the community. If a couple is forced to birth a child that they do not want or cannot afford, this will cause psychological and emotional distress to the couple and very possibly transfer an economic burden to the community. I have noted that “to bring a child into existence without a fair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for its body, but instruction and training for its mind, is a moral crime, both against the unfortunate offspring and against society; and that if the parent does not fulfill this obligation, the State ought to see it fulfilled, at the charge, as far as possible, of the parent,” (On Liberty, Chapter 5).
According to the government’s own research, any pain the fetus might potentially experience during an abortion does not exist until at least twenty weeks; therefore, this aspect of consideration for the pain of the fetus must in the least require that expectant mothers have fourteen more weeks (twenty weeks, rather than six) to execute an abortion and must be weighed against the pain of others. As for the mother, how would one know the variance in potential pain from the sixth to the twentieth week? There is no relative proof that waiting fourteen more weeks causes a mother more pain. In fact, it provides more time for a mother to consciously decide about the potential of emotional happiness or pain that the pregnancy could produce for herself and her family. I maintain that each person “is the proper guardian of [his/ her/ their] own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual” (On Liberty, Chapter 1). Also, many women are unaware of their pregnancies until about five weeks in or beyond. I repeat that “independence is, of right, absolute. Over [himself/ herself/ their-self], over [his/ her/ their] own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” yet there is no consideration for the sovereignty of an expectant woman who does not even know she is pregnant and needs to make a choice about ending her pregnancy according to the law (On Liberty, Chapter 1).
It is impossible to make generalized laws about abortion because each particular case has its own endlessly fluctuating variables. I have before asserted that the “potential aggregate of qualities in the individual must be fostered as an antidote to the ills of a drab social uniformity,” meaning that our individuality expresses in “differences of conduct and practice, in diverse displays of spontaneity and energy, and in distinct styles of living” which explains the inherent variability that makes generalization of the law inhumane (On Liberty: Individual, Society, and State). Blanket rules about when birth can no longer be terminated do not agree with a hedonistic-utilitarian model because each situation requires holistic consideration.