Armor Games

I think zerato has the only consistent view of abortion that I've seen.  Most people are uncomfortable saying that abortion in cases of sexual assault is wrong, but clearly if it's "murder" then it is wrong in any scenario.  Abortion should be an all or nothing situation - it is either fine across the board (except, perhaps, past the second trimester) or it is wrong across the board.  If we make exceptions for certain things, it seems like we're just acknowledging that abortion is not governed by morality.
The problem is that we have people who are for abortion, except as a means of birth control and we have those who are against it, except in cases of sexual assault or the mother dying.  Clearly, however, it's either right or wrong and so having exceptions obviously denies the normativity of the issue and creates an inconsistent platform.
But are we in a place where we can take one extreme or the other?  Or is it just the case that morality cannot solve the ethical concerns of abortion?

Or is it just the case that morality cannot solve the ethical concerns of abortion?

It took me a while to get where you're coming from, you Kantian trickster, you!

I was like "all or nothing situation? What the heck!?" Besides, as you know, whether something has emerged or not from the uterus flies in the face of the sliding scale of development as your admission:

Abortion should be an all or nothing situation - it is either fine across the board (except, perhaps, past the second trimester

implicitly acknowledges.

Besides, I was going to propose another schema that accounted for moral normative judgment: beheficience and minimsation of suffering. This way it would be compelling to terminate a pregnancy in case of medical emergency but otherwise unacceptable to terminate pregnancy after 24 weeks. In this way morality can suggest guidelines to address the ethical concerns of abortion. I never believed that morality would actually solve problems anyway.

What got me to that sort of all-or-nothing mentality was the comparison people keep making between abortion and murder.  Now, anyone who understands these two terms also understands that abortion is not murder, but I would like to draw an analogy.
With murder, we classify it not on the outcome, but on intent and praise/blame.  If there was not an intention to kill the person, then it's manslaughter.  If there was an intention to kill the person, but we don't blame them for it then we call it justifiable homicide (like self-defense, for example).  Only if there was intention to kill and we would not praise the act do we call it murder.  But the outcome - death of an individual - is the same in each circumstance.
I think one of the problems we have in talking about abortion is that there isn't this strict differentiation.  Now, whether or not there should be is another question entirely, but I think those who are pro-life would want to support such a differentiation.  We do assess intent, through terms like miscarriage versus abortion, but we do not assess the praise or blame that is called for in the situation.  Perhaps if we developed another word for an abortion that we don't want to place blame on the mother, then it would create a more homogeneous concept of abortion that could be addressed directly.