The right question is "is this murder". By talking past the sale so to speak (asking a question about a later piece of rhetoric), we are in danger of legitimising (to onlookers) a piece of rhetoric that is hand-crafted to cause outrage.
It does however get a bit complex at times. Here in Sweden there has been some discussion what to do with delays in abortion caused by the hospital. The result of the discussion was to determine viability based on the initial date that the decision to have an abortion was registered. The argument is that the treatment women go through to have an abortion makes the embryo/fetus less viable, thus making it still legal to have an abortion in those cases beyond week 22.
From a philosophical perspective I see the viability test as being a unfulfilling answer to both side of the political space, but it seems like the best approach from a practical perspective.
For example, there are laws against murder. But if, while defending yourself, the other is killed that is not considered wrong, in most cases.
You are right that taking life is taking life. And I would agree that a case could be made for murder in some cases with soldiers.
So the real question is is it killing a fetus or murdering a fetus?
No one debates there is life.
People do in fact debate whether or not there is human life.
If you choose to define it as murder, that's up to you, knock yourself out, but the state has power and authority - you don't.