Therefore, the utilitarian would likely object on moral grounds to any late-term abortive procedure that would cause the fetus pain, even if the balance of objective moral good suggests that aborting a seriously defective fetus. Other than the issue of causing pain to the fetus, the utilitarian position would also consider the long-term subjective experience of living with a severe defect, which might also be quite painful on more than one level. With respect to concern for the defective fetus, the utilitarian would likely object to any procedure that caused pain to the fetus during the process; otherwise, the utilitarian would consider late-term abortion in this case, in relation to the harm-benefit analysis to others, provided that the procedure chosen would incorporate the moral need to anesthetize the fetus. Beyond the issue of the fetus' pain, the utilitarian would consider the emotional difficulty and economic harm to the mother and to her family associated with coping with severely handicapped child who required extensive medical care and lifelong care.

Since the implications of taking on this responsibility would severely impact the lives of everyone in the family indefinitely, the utilitarian analysis would likely justify a painless) abortion for the benefit of the family. Furthermore, the utilitarian would also consider the cost (and therefore, the harm) to society as a whole of sharing the responsibility for accommodating severely handicapped...

If the social cost of providing medical care and other necessary accommodations included significant expenditures of funds diverted from other socially beneficial uses for the benefit of many individuals, the utilitarian position would favor abortion, for this reason as well. The case involving rape is different in principle, primarily because it is harder but not impossible) to conceive of any benefit to the fetus. Whereas the defective fetus could be said to have been spared a difficult life, that is not necessarily the case in the rape situation, assuming the fetus is healthy. The utilitarian could imagine that being raised by a mother emotionally traumatized by the memory of rape might be something from which to spare the fetus, this requires a speculative stretch of the imagination. Assuming only that the issue of causing the fetus pain is either inapplicable (by virtue of the early stage of development at the time of consideration), or that the procedure could be accomplished in a humane (i.e. painless) manner, the utilitarian would likely support the woman's choice to abort the fetus. This is because the beneficial interest (or corresponding harm) associated with the dilemma include those experienced by the woman and her family, which outweighs the same interests of any single individual, including those of the unborn fetus. In a utilitarian analysis, there is no corresponding social cost as in the case of the handicapped child. However, the utilitarian might stretch the imagination again to consider the possibility that a child who is the product of rape might be more likely to follow a deviant or violent lifestyle to whatever extent his father's conduct was a reflection of genetic predisposition. In this regard, both Wertheimer and Sumner would likely support virtually any choice to abort (painlessly) on the basis of utilitarian concern for the mother's interests, those of her family, and those of society. Callahan would likely support any choice to abort based on fetal defect or peril to the well-being of the mother, but would likely oppose the callous use of abortion as retroactive birth control once a fetus has acquired sentience and/or viability.