Your logic is almost perfectly circular. Murder is defined as the “unlawful” killing of one human by another, so what the law says is exactly to the point of whether or not abortion is murder.
Killing someone in justified self-defense is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.
Even if the law finally and fully acknowledged the humanity of the unborn, there would still be legal circumstances under which the killing of the unborn was not murder.
“Your logic is almost perfectly circular.”
Your logic is almost perfectly progressive.
“Murder is defined as the “unlawful” killing of one human by another, so what the law says is exactly to the point of whether or not abortion is murder.”
So then you understand that abortion is lawful murder? Because it is of course, one human being killing another.
“Killing someone in justified self-defense is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.”
Or, are you instead saying that the human implanted inside the woman’s womb due to her own chosen actions (statistically, in all likelihood) has now become a person seeking to bring her harm? Or are you saying that mothers are people who often must defend themselves against their children by justifiably killing them?
And if I was a father who wanted to bring a court case against a woman who aborted my child in her womb, and I charged her with murder, are you saying she would claim it was a justifiable homicide?
Because there is absolutely no scientific way to say that a child is not human at the point of conception.
“Even if the law finally and fully acknowledged the humanity of the unborn, there would still be legal circumstances under which the killing of the unborn was not murder.”
Well, we don’t know that, do we? Because as you have pointed out, the law of the land is currently wrong on the identification of what is human, although natural law has never been vague.
Question for you: which law would you feel more comfortable putting your life in the hands of— the law of the land, or Nature’s Law?