So, a bit of a forewarning here: this is going to delve into a controversial topic. I hope we can keep this civil, but this is the internet so who knows. Ideally, this also won't take a political tack, just thinking about the concept, but this is the internet after all.
Anyways, here's my question. I have run into a bit of a contradiction when thinking about the topic of abortion from a utilitarian perspective. So there are two main arguments that come to mind. First off, a fetus is not a person and can't feel pleasure/pain. Particularly in cases where the mother's life is in danger when giving birth the suffering of the mother will be far outweigh any pain the fetus may feel (if any) during the process, so if a woman doesn't want the baby it is morally right ok to have an abortion. On the other hand you have the argument presented here: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/04/where_are_the_p.html The argument basically goes like this: A pregnant woman is only pregnant for nine months whereas a fetus (if allowed to develop) would experience a lifetime of happiness. How does the nine months outweigh the lifetime?
My initial thoughts on this were that it's not just nine months, it's potentially a lifetime as well as the mother will need to care for the kid, possibly sacrifice career options and dreams for the kid, likely resent the kid, and is more likely to neglect or not care as much for the kid as the could if they had wanted to have the kid. This leads to a rather unhappy childhood for the kid which has carry over effects into their adult lives and potentially makes their children or families worse off down the line. However, I am not sure if a) that is a strong argument or not, b) it ignores the case of adoption, and c) it doesn't resolve this contradiction I mentioned earlier between the two branches of utilitarian thought.
So in short, my question is what does utilitarianism say on abortion? Which strand of thinking better fits with the philosophy?
Also since this came up in one of the comments I want to address it really quick here. By no means am I trying to minimize the personhood of the woman involved. I was just asking from a purely utilitarian point of view, which would include the woman's feelings and happiness. The one argument presented would indicate that even if the mother was stuck with the kid for 18 years, in principle the kid could go on to live for several more decades in happiness. Yes, that could ruin the mother's life but does utilitarianism indicate that it is justified? It certainly doesn't feel like it does, and there is another utilitarian way to look at it, hence this contradiction I mentioned. To be clear, I am factoring in the woman's happiness, but I am dealing with totals. Not trying to minimize people. I apologize if it came across like that.