There, here, and in other places, you have intermittently substituted "population" and "child" for "fetus", and substituted "death" for "abortion of a fetus".
Until sufficient scientific consensus exists to substitute your rhetoric for the scientific terms, the scientific terms should be used. Unsurprisingly, when one does this, the resulting positions aren't very convincing.
It’s somewhat hilarious that the pro-choice camp has decided to go with the same arguments used to justify slavery. Is a minor not a human? A geriatric? Just because a life stage is given a label doesn’t eliminate its humanity (but using the phrase in place of other terms is used to dehumanize).
Your definitions of "population" and "child" would include a cell or two, which most Americans find ridiculous. Sophistry and rhetoric haven't convinced them: most Americans support abortion but oppose murder. The logical conclusion of this isn't that most Americans are experiencing some sort of mass cognitive dissonance, but that your conflation of the two is unconvincing.
Indeed, laws generally apply to "persons" and not "groups of 1+ human cells" for a reason, and the reason isn't mass hysteria. Likewise, scientific consensus has formed around the terms "fetus" and "abortion of a fetus" for a reason, and the reason isn't some grand conspiracy to "dehumanize" groups of cells.
Until sufficient scientific consensus exists to substitute your rhetoric for the scientific terms, the scientific terms should be used. Unsurprisingly, when one does this, the resulting positions aren't very convincing.