To state the underlying principles.

There's a big fucking difference between inaction causing bad stuff and action causing bad stuff.

A world full of people who don't commit evil but also don't go to an extreme effort to stop it results in a good world. A successful moral code.

A world full of people who go out causing evil results in a fucked up world. An unsuccessful moral code.

Going out of the way to fix evil may be more moral, but inaction itself is not immoral. So it is perfectly fine for an individual to choose inaction.

That's why we have leaders and governments. To create a mechanism for a greater morality. To make the "hard choices" and determine whether that greater morality would be server better by crossing over from inaction to action. To decide whether we, as a society, have a responsibility to save those starfish or whether our efforts could result in more "good" elsewhere.

This is also why abortion is an actual moral issue, and why "personhood" needs to be clearly defined using solid underlying principles. Pretty much everybody considers newborns and infants to be "persons". And pretty much nobody believes that a newborn somehow magically undergoes some qualitative transformation as soon as it pops out of a vagina. That means that at some point a fetus achieves "personhood" while in the womb. And that also means that an abortion at that point would be an active act of evil committed by an individual.

Anybody who would argue for the legalization of abortions past that point of "personhood" when the mother's life is not in danger is therefore advocating for committing the greater act of evil of murder due to the lesser evil of the inconveniencing of the mother during the months she is pregnant. And this is also why conflating the "kidney" thing with abortion is wrong. Active acts of evil and letting evil happen through inaction are very much so different.

That's why Destiny was being so autistic about getting a definition of "personhood". A definition with clearly stated principles that can be extrapolated and examined in a wide variety of situations. Does a fetus become a "person" when it is no longer dependent on outside assistance to live? Then should we be allowed to kill or enslave people on pacemakers and artificial organs? City people require outside assistance in order to feed themselves, are they no longer "persons"?

Does a fetus become a "person" when it is capable of independent movement? The ability to react to outside stimuli such as voices? The ability to dream?

All of these questions are important. Once the underlying principles can be decided upon they can then be translated to other situations. With those principles you can then determine the "personhood" of people in comas of varying degrees. People with parts of their brains missing. People with severe developmental disabilities. And, possibly in the future, people that aren't wholly organic. That's when you know you have a strong system of principles and beliefs, when you can apply them universally with results you can stand behind.

But it seems like a lot of pro-abortion advocates don't have a strong and clear system of principles. They'll say stuff like "it's a person once it's born and until then it's a tumor". Or "women's body, women's choice". Does being encased inside of a woman somehow make you not a person? Would anybody be willing to deal with the consequences of this statement? Is "women's body, women's choice" even an argument? "My money, my choice", guess we don't have taxes anymore. "Men's body, men's choice" guess men don't have to register for the draft anymore. What the fuck is this shit supposed to even mean?