Utilitarian Arguments Against Pro-Life Abortion Restrictions

Introduction: Church, State, and the Abortion Debate

Though there is a theoretical separation between Church and State which is said to serve the inherently spiritual but politically secular United States, there is nonetheless an inextricable relationship between the moral codes that guide both sectors. It may often be difficult, if not impossible, to fully distinguish where moral motives derive from political imperatives versus religious ones when speaking on such sociologically prevalent issues as those concerning law and order, civil liberty, and the sanctity of human life. Perhaps no such issue is as salient in modern discourse as that of abortion. By no mere incidence of its commonality throughout human history, but by its very implications for our conception of what defines life, abortion is unlikely ever to be settled in a fashion that ends collective disagreement on the matter.

However, by examining abortion according to the premises of utilitarian thought, it becomes clear that there is a greater rational foundation for the political perspective taken by pro-choice advocates, which opposes legal obstruction to the right to an abortion.

Bentham and the Utilitarian Foundation

The utilitarian ideology, in the form that is most relevant here, may be traced to the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, a scholar to whom John Stuart Mill, in his 1838 treatise on the influential thinker, attributed the quality of progressiveness. One of Bentham's great contributions to the discourse on the prime determinants of individual rights was his insertion of logical pragmatism into their formulation, which ultimately allows us to be removed from the restraints of religious ideology that have confounded the true ethical debate over the right to abortion.

Natural Rights and the Rejection of Religious Imperatives

Bentham considered the notion that there are certain guaranteed natural rights to which all people are entitled — rights that should be recognized by virtue of their very existence — as a foundational premise of the utilitarian perspective. He objected to the idea that any individual or group should be given an ethical framework through which to dictate what is right and what is wrong. This provides a firm preemptive rejection of the religious politicization that has manifested in efforts to prohibit women from deciding for themselves whether abortion is an appropriate action. Such prohibition, Bentham contended, would be a contradiction to the preservation of individual rights.

He even signals the necessity for a change in approach to questions regarding the prescription of rights, here channeled through the words of John Stuart Mill. The remarks seem directed, in their derisive tone, at unempirical thinkers who espouse the Law of Nature as a singular lens for evaluating human rights.

Conclusion: Pro-Life Agenda vs. Ethical Pragmatism

The debate on abortion suggests a concerted interest by those parties subscribed to the pro-life agenda to invoke a common acceptance of a single moral position. This is precisely the type of imperative that runs directly counter to the ethical pragmatism demanded by the utilitarian perspective. Where utilitarianism insists on precise, empirically grounded reasoning and the widest possible preservation of individual happiness, the pro-life agenda relies on intuition-based moral claims that resist scrutiny — and, by Bentham's and Mill's standards, lack the rational foundation required to justify restricting the rights of others.

Works Cited

California Medical Association (CMA). (1973). Where We Stand — CMA Position Papers: Abortion. Western Journal of Medicine, 116(6), 42–59.

Mill, J.S. (1838). Bentham. London and Westminster Review.

Rachels, J. (1993). The Utilitarian Approach. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, pp. 91–101. New York: McGraw Hill.