A fetus is not a person, but it IS a human. What crime has the unborn committed to warrant being killed?
I wholeheartedly disagree that it is a human, but it is human. Prior to viability, a fetus cannot live without its host and is thus not independent.
And if it IS a human, what has the mother done to warrant the government mandating she donate the use of her organs to another human? Does this requirement also extend if the child requires a heart/lung transplant after birth?
The unborn has done nothing wrong, but no one has any right to the usage of another's organs.
You are correct, it is not murder. Of coure, it is also not murder to execute a criminal, therefor it is easy to determine that murder and execution is not the same thing. Your issue is that you mix up terms. You use execution and murder as if they are synonyms when they are not. Some executions are murder, some are not. You also use hyperbole incorrectly, which causes you to be even more confused.
Fine, I'll revise and say it also can't be an execution if the fetus is not a person. It doesn't change my premise.