The thing is, those conflict if the foetus is a living human. In that case, the doctors performing abortions are the serial killers. Thus, the argument comes back to what I said originally, that it's totally based on when a human becomes a human.
Murder is defined as a predetermined,
unlawful, and malicious act of killing. Those examples were given, by design, in the explicit context that the law should only protect members of society that can not protect themselves. As a fetus is not a member of society, it should not be protected by law. Therefore, in this context, abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law.
Your clever erasure of the context doesn't validate your argument. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, simply that your argument is baseless. Actually, on a personal level, I do agree with what you're saying - there's no chance I could ever even consider working in a place like that. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe that legislature should stop where the gray area begins, not where it ends. The reason that the area is gray is because it's debatable, and for that reason, it should be open to exploration and interpretation.
Why is it so hard to understand that I don't choose to abort fetuses, but I'm okay with letting other people make the (wrong) decision to abort? I'd even venture as far as to say that, in the majority of cases, it's for the genetic well being of our species, anyways.
[edit] New idea: abortion control. Think gun control, except with abortions where the guns are. Discuss.