Distinguishing between moral and non-moral can be problematic, especially when the evaluation does not concern universal values. Some questions make us distinguish pros and cons rather than come to a certain decision. In this case, we cannot rely on our subconscious and need to judge all possible variants, weigh arguments, and make a decision that will do more benefit than harm.
While thinking whether to condemn or justify the action, we shall define its target. If a woman cannot decide whether to make an abortion or not, she does not need to think about what other people say. Of course, the mass opinion may be a potent social mechanism, but the woman can evaluate another moral system as a prior one. From the point of child’s future well-being (or rather its absence), abortion can be evaluated as a morally right decision. In another example, the action in question is targeted at the broad community. Imagine an organization that hesitates whether to invest a sum of money to save one child from leukemia or to supply the entire African village with essential antimalarial drugs. It seems, whatever option we choose, the opposition will suffer to death, which makes both actions non-moral. But taking into account the system that evaluates a greater good, saving a lot of people ill with malaria is more morally right than saving a single child.
Talking about the universal values, we are perfectly capable of determining subconsciously which action is right and which is wrong. But dealing with controversial dilemmas we can neither approve nor condemn both variants. We need to choose one of them and prove that it is moral from the point of view that is of a prior importance to us.