UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

You have no doctrinal basis to challenge those teachings, so let's set aside the bullshit you are piling on Pope Francis' grave.

You are making a non-religious argument:

You are making a secular argument that it is permissible, even preferable, for the law to transfer harm from one innocent human being to another innocent human being. We don't typically (ever?) do this.

Further, you argue that it is morally better to kill one of two innocent human beings than to allow the other of the two human beings to suffer. I suppose this is preferable for you because the harm is visible, whereas the killing is hidden. But that is not how we judge morality...and because you know this, you are left with defining a class of human beings as "not persons." Can you think of any other circumstance in which such an argument (that some humans aren't persons) was used to justify a net good? I can't. Instead, history is full of examples in which such logic was used to justify killing Jews, enslaving blacks, killing the mentally handicapped, forced sterilization, etc. Those are the traditions which your "prudential" argument puts you in the middle of.

Some times morality requires tough decisions. If we change morality when living it becomes too hard, then it is not really morality, is it. Why bother having a set of "rules" which change whenever you want? Just do what you want.

BTW, you like to talk about the 9 year old. I get it. That is a terrible case. But it seems like you are using her special case to justify millions of other abortions. What about the 30 year old who wants a son and not a daughter?....or doesn't want to interrupt her career?...or doesn't want her husband to know she was having an affair? Do you think that woman should be able to get a legal, purely elective abortion?