That's completely fare. I agree, but the issue comes down to differing opinions on what specifically constitutes harm or injustice.

Euthanasia is a prime example of a that. I think that there are circumstances where it's morally justifiable but I don't think it should be legalized because it removes a major social more of taking care of the sick and infirm and not merely disposing of them. We don't want to come to a society where we are so cruel that we consider the elderly and infirm a burden that should be easily disposed of. And I think legalization here has potentially troublesome unknown social ramifications.

But is it harm or injustice to give a terminally ill person in hospice care a knowingly fatal dose of heroin so they die faster rather than languishing in pain for hours or days? I'd argue that it is neither. But is it something that society should tolerate or promote? I think the answer to that question is also no.

Ethical quandaries are controversial because there are usually good compelling arguments to be made for both positions. That doesn't necessarily mean both positions are equally moral or right, but it does mean we'll never have the short easy answers that we want and are so drawn to adopting. It's the primary reason why in most debates people become frustrated why their short insight on the topic isn't received as they hoped. My body my choice is a good example. The basic idea is sound, but it's a poor pro-abortion argument because the opponent is not arguing against bodily autonomy. They will simply say it's not your body, so it's not your choice. They underlying postulation is not accepted so the argument is ineffectual but to the person making the argument they can't understand that and here the rejection of the statement as a rejection of the idea of bodily autonomy in general rather than a rejection of the idea that bodily autonomy applies specifically to abortion. They then see that rejection as monstrous as indeed, saying that people have no right to make their own medical choices is indeed a monstrous thing to say, however that isn't what is being argued, both sides are misrepresenting the other but not intentionally. Abortion is murder is another good example. From the pro life side the person making that statement believes fetus = baby therefore murder. They see the rejection of that ideal as monstrous as indeed promoting infanticide is. However the pro choice side disregards that argument not because they are pro murder but because they do not accept the underlying postulate that fetus = baby.

Unfortunately there's no easy way to reconcile these viewpoints but at the very least the state of discourse would improve greatly if the arguments were made from a position not assuming the bad intents of the opposition.