"moral good" and "immoral" are too reductionist.
it sets the parameters too rigidly,and ignores other components.
in my example"rationality".
I am addressing that,using hitler as an example,would not fit into your parameters,because hitler does not view his actions as "immoral" but rather highly moral,and necessary..in his "rationality",or "rationalizations".
there is elementary morality,and then their is perceived morality.
perception is fueled by subjectivity.an inherently irrational metric to judge our own morality,and even worse judging others.
example:
a beloved catholic priest devotes his time helping the poor,sitting with the elderly and dying and is perceived as a pious and loving priest.
but is then exposed as diddling his altar boys,and the perception changes from him being a devout minister of Christ,to that of a monster.when confronted,the priest denies any wrong-doing.that he was simply being affectionate,and the touching was done in "innocence".using his own rationalizing to deflect from recognizing his own immoral acts.
this is where the "moral good" argument falls apart.
because if we took the "moral good for the betterment of all,even if that means enduring the immoral" to it's logical conclusion,then we would have to apply it to all possibly moral conundrums.
and it will always have the exact same conclusion.
do we apply it only to fetuses? who may or may not become the next Beethoven?
or children? and in that case,why aren't people flocking to yemen to save those children dying of cholera? couldn't one of them be the next genius?
to imply the "moral good" argument will take you into very deep waters,and ultimately,it will come down to rationalizations,and the "moral good" argument get's tossed aside.
the best approach is to realize that human beings are highly irrational,and incredibly clever in defending their own immorality,while judging others as being morally suspect,based on their own subjective nature.
being anti-abortion can be a moral stance,but it is not a binary dynamic.