No abortion outside of extenuating circumstances should be permitted

What is Government? - The ethical foundation for what is and isn't permitted.Goverment is defined as 'the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.' (1)It goes without saying that the government's purpose is to create a stable society - otherwise it has no substantial role. Therefore, we are justified in saying that the government ought to create a stable society [a]. It can only do this by instigating laws.What phiosophical basis is behind these laws? Considering that the government ought to create a stable society, it follows that the principles that are most conducive to a stable society are the principles upon which the government ought to create its laws.I propose that laws based upon the principle of utility are the most conducive to a stable society. This is because utility is essential to all human existence and living, and hence it is the most prudent principle upon which to make laws. [b]To clarify what this principle is:'the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.' (2)In other words, when the government makes laws, it ought to maximise the happiness and minimise the unhappiness of all beings that are affected by the law. If a law both increases happiness and increases unhappiness for different people, the net-happiness should be calculated to ascertain whether the law ought to be introduced.Therefore, I can conclude that the principle of utility is the philosophical basis for what the government should or should not permit.AbortionConsider the following law:'Abortion is not permitted (apart from extenuating circumstances)'.I argue that this law ought to be enforced by the government because its existence promotes a greater net-happiness for the parties involved than what would otherwise be promoted if this law did not exist.The implications of this law are as follows:The law exists: Hundreds of (illegal) abortions take placeThe law does not exist: Millions of (legal) abortions take placeTherefore, more abortions will take place if it is permitted by the government.So now let's do a utilitarian calculation.With the average abortion scenario, the following happiness/unhappiness is generated:1. The foetus loses ~80 years of happiness [c]2. The mother loses ~9 months of happiness [d]3. Society is negligibly impacted. The average abortion does not impact society, as the average child-born does not impact society in a significant manner.From this analysis, we can see that the net-happiness is +~79 years worth of happiness if abortion does not occur, whereas it is -~79 years worth of happiness if it does.It is clear that, on balance, abortion should not be permitted because permitting it would cause a net-decrease in happiness.SummaryP1: The government ought to promote a stable society.P2: Laws based upon the principle of utility are most conducive to a stable society.C1: The government ought to base laws upon the principle of utilityP3: The banning of abortion would be cause more happiness to the parties involved than the permitting of it.C: The government ought to not permit abortion.Hence I affirm the resolutionFootnotes[a] This does not commit the is/ought problem because the purpose of something contains what that something ought to do. For example, a clock's purpose is to tell the time; therefore a clock ought to tell the time. If one does not understand what a clock ought to do then they do not really know what a clock really is. If X's purpose is to do Y, then X ought to do Y.[b] Every justification for human actions eventually rest upon the maximising of happiness and the minimising of unhappiness, and as the government is a group of people it can only really justify its actions by appealing to the maximisation of happiness as well. To deny this is to deny a fundamental part of human nature. Furthermore, society will be most stable if the laws are based upon the same foundation as people's personal morality (which is based upon the principle of utility)- since there would be less dissension.[c] The average lifespan for a child born in the UK is 81 years (4). If it is aborted, it will lose all the happiness contained within those 81 years. Note that this rests upon the fair assumption that life generally contains more happiness than unhappiness, as otherwise we would have no reason to not all commit suicide right now. Even if one envisions an unhappy future, that future is still valuable insofar as it has the potential to contain happiness.[d] This is an overestimation, since it assumes that an expectant mother does not experience any happiness during pregnancy (which is evidently false). Moreover, it assumes that having an abortion would make the mother happier than if she did not have it. This may be the case, but not necessarily so.Sources(1) Google: 'Define government'(2) Mill, John-Stuart, 'On Liberty'(3) Bentham, Jeremy, 'An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation'(4) http://data.worldbank.org...