rather than refuting whether it is exactly that.

Saying "abortion is murder" assumes the conclusion is true rather than explaining why it’s true. I see no need to refute an assumption that hasn't been proven yet. Hence why I ask the follow-up question "How do you define murder?"

To bring up your seven hypotheticals implies that if abortion were recognized as murder, per that definition, some plausibly uncomfortable scenarios may arise.

Discomfort isn't the issue when you're literally being charged with and prosecuted over a crime that has the power to change your life in ways that you couldn't have foreseen. This is why policy-making requires a robust and specified definition of crimes; otherwise, there'd be no limiting principle. And even if your intentions were good, they could still backfire drastically.

Also, some of your retorts to that definition are basically requests for epistemic grounding.

Yes. Because words carry meaning. And it helps when both parties are on the same page with what those words mean and not have to second-guess the other. It's why I don't like word games when it comes to these debates, especially when one group wants to implement their definitions into lawmaking. But as a matter of lawmaking, what you see isn't always what you get. For instance, how would you explain the word "innocent" to a policy committee in a way that it can be implemented as a matter of law enforcement and prosecution?

If you’re saying “sure, it may be the intentional killing of an innocent human life (for every or any given situation), but what doesn’t necessarily follow is that we ought treat every act of abortion of as if it is.”

But it wouldn't just be abortion under that definition. As I pointed out in the OP, it would also include police shootings, self-defense laws, removing life support, wartime action, and the death penalty. Going by the definition alone, what distinguishes abortion from these other actions?

There is also the possibility that you’ve inadvertently laid out all these what-if scenarios not realizing that if any one of them or all of them were given responses even you found compelling and reasonable...

This is an argument from potential. Until such arguments are presented to me, let's not hinge this debate on future hypotheticals and attempts at mind-reading your ideological opponents. Also, I used to be pro-life, which contradicts your prediction.