MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE AND THE LEGITIMACY OF ABORTION LAWS: WHERE SHOULD THE STATE DRAW THE LINE?
MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE AND THE LEGITIMACY OF ABORTION LAWS: WHERE SHOULD THE STATE DRAW THE LINE?

Summary/Abstract: The present study seeks to analyse the application of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle to evaluate state intervention through abortion laws over women’s reproductive autonomy. The principle given by Mill argues that intervention by the state over individual liberty is justified only when it is to prevent harm to others. The study explores whether abortion laws infringe upon or protect individual autonomy in the guise of state regulation to prevent harm to others. The study adopts a normative comparative legal analysis and reviews harm-based arguments in the development of law and policy concerning abortion rights. The application of Mill’s Harm Principle to abortion laws clarifies whether existing abortion laws infringe upon or uphold individual liberty. The analysis shows how states adopt different approaches to abortion regulation, demonstrating different interpretations of the status of prenatal life, individual liberty and harm. While some jurisdictions adopt restrictive frameworks grounded in the moral interests of the society and protection of potential life, other jurisdictions limit interference by the state and prioritise reproductive autonomy. The present study adds to the legal scholarship by applying a classical liberal theory to contemporary abortion debates, offering policy recommendations to lawmakers for a balanced legal framework which respects reproductive autonomy while addressing state concerns.

• Details
• Contents