Which law was passed first and which second? Generally the later law overrides earlier one unless the old one has higher status (like Constitution vs. statute).
And although I find the judge's logic disgusting about a six-day old baby not being a person, the action took place when the woman was pregnant and the child died six days after an emergency C-section. If the law says that injury to the unborn isn't a crime and the judge said that the lower judges didn't follow the law, then I (with much disgust) have to agree with the judge. It's his job to rule on the law - not make it up even in the way I would like.
So, if you attack a pregnant woman, and her unborn child dies as a direct result of the attack, then that constitutes a “homicide” - but if she directs a doctor to inflict the same outcome, then that is just “abortion.” ...
The law is a moral farce on its face. It is contradictory. Immoral or unjust law is no law, and none who still possess free will - and choose to exercise that faculty - may be compelled to obey such madness.
The fact that so many Americans are willing to accept such insane duplicity, under the color of law, only proves that the majority of my countrymen are incorrigible reprobates, and thus undeserving of continued freedom. Your response is no different than an attempt to justify that Hitler’s SS officers were “just following orders.” The rationale is identical.
If we are so easily able to dismiss this absurdity, for reason of legalism (which is in fact the basis of your argument) then we deserve to be annihilated as a nation and a people. We no longer deserve the gift of life or freedom, and the entire nation should be wiped from the face of the Earth. We have become a sick joke, both as a people and a nation.