How about you just answer the OP, Quasi, first? Then we can chat.
And of course it’s a moral problem.
Surely you wouldn’t have argued with an abolitionist in the 19th century: “Slavery is legal. Therefore your objections have no basis in morality. You need to argue legalisms only with me!”
It’s who’s rights trump the others. Does the mother’s right to control her health/body trump the baby’s rights? Or do the baby’s rights trump hers?
No mother has any absolute right to her own body. She can’t do whatever she wants with her body, absolutely, if she’s pregnant. If her doctor knows she’s taking drugs, it’s his duty to report this. Why? Because she doesn’t have an absolute right to control her body if there’s another body inside.
Regardless of anyone’s moral beliefs, the legal system can’t side in favor of the baby in this case without imposing a police state on pregnant women. If a baby’s rights trump the rights of the mother, than not only does abortion need to be illegal, but smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, strenuous exercise against a doctor’s orders, failing to seek appropriate prenatal care, eating a lot of tuna fish while pregnant etc. etc. would also need to be illegal for pregnant women because they all potentially harm the baby without its consent.
Well, that’s like arguing that laws against domestic violence are imposing a police state on men.
That’s why the pro-life movement will likely never succeed despite its best efforts, because to do so they would have to have personhood extended to fetuses, and the idea of a legally separate person living entirely inside another person is not feasible.
So when should personhood be applied? And why?