it is a massive logical fallacy to say that becuase something isn’t murder now that even if it’s seen as murder in the future it wasn’t murder in the past.

I’m not convinced that’s actually true, but it’s irrelevant anyway, since that’s not what I said.

The other poster did not assert simply that abortion is murder, but that those who support a right to abortion explicitly advocate for murder.

The assertion was not about the morality of the act, but about the morality of the people who support the right to commit that act.

Do you grasp that distinction?

Slavery now is still the same as slavery in the past and past atrocities do not become humane because they are viewed through the lens of time.

Certainly, but again, that’s irrelevant, since the exact point I was making was that the other poster was rendering a moral judgment of the people - not the act.

And slavery makes a good comparison. Yes - we now view slavery to be wrong, and simply wrong - it was wrong in the past just as it would be wrong today.

But we can’t legitimately condemn those in the past who held slaves in societies in which holding slaves was deen to be entirely moral, since they were doing the exact same thing that we’re now doing - they were doing the best they could to lead a moral life. It’s not that they were evil and we are good - it’s that they were good by the standards of their time just as we are good by the standards of ours. That’s the most one can generally do, so that’s all anyone can ever justifiably be expected to do.

If standards change such that an act that at one time was judged to be good is later judged to be evil, then yes - it can be said that it was always evil. But those who committed the act specifically because they were taught that it was good - those who set out to be good people and acted as they did specifically because the society of which they were a part told them that [this] is what good people do - cannot legitimately be charged by later generations with advocating for evil. They advocated for good, just as we do. That they were, by our standards, wrong about what does or does not qualify as good doesn’t alter that fact.

This begs the question why do you keep insinuating that because something is legal then it is moral?

I… didn’t even come vaguely close to “insinuating” that. I have absolutely no idea where or how you got such a wildly inaccurate impression.