The debate over abortion has been constantly raging since the day it was legalized. It is a debate that sees large amounts of supporters that are both for and against it. In our society moral applications of certain ethics vary throughout. This is the case for philosophers John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant. For the first part of my paper I will be applying the theories of both of these philosophers to write where I believe they would stand on the issue of abortion. I will then discuss which of the arguments I find most convincing.
             I will begin with the approach of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. Mill's Utilitarianisms is a compound of two independent views, which include the theory of values and the theory of right conduct. I will use his theory of right conduct to explain that Mill believes abortion is wrong. The theory of right conduct is the idea that what someone ought to do is an action that will provide the best consequences. This is for anybody affected by it including you. Maximized happiness can be calculated by the amount of pleasure over the amount of pain. You can recognize how Mill's Utilitarianism goes against abortion if you look at amounts of pleasure over pain in instances of people that have abortions against situations when abortion is avoided. In both cases the maximized happiness must be evaluated for both the fetus and the parents of the fetus.
             Firstly I will discuss the idea of pleasure over pain from the fetus's side. This could be considered to be an unnecessary debate knowing that if an abortion is performed early enough there is no pain felt by the fetus. According to Mary Anne Warren, author of "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," it is not until the sixth month that a fetus has the ability to feel pain (Warren 132). Since it is possible to have an abortion after six months we can assume that there is a possibility that it is painful for the fetus. It must ...