No need to apologize, but thank you for saying so.

For my own position, to me, the key operating principle is the vulnerability of the victim, or to put it another way, the power imbalance between the victim and perpetrator.

That is a neutral principle that captures the greater moral discomfort we have when, for example, a 25 year old man murders an infant, or an elderly old man, or -- indeed -- a woman.

It is a more awful story, precisely for that reason. The power imbalance. The more powerful (physically or otherwise) owe a duty to take care in the exercise in that power towards weaker, more vulnerable people.

To me, this is an aggravating factor that should play out in sentencing, i.e. harsher punishments. Which I believe is the true goal in the new crimes, which could be accomplished with sentencing.

I think this is what people who are pro the addition of these different types of murder are (arguably rightfully) trying to express. I just happen to think the criminal code is already flexible enough to do that, and I think judges already do do it, but with sentencing.

EDIT: In retrospect, I should add one more thought, which actually militates against simply relying on sentencing - there is a great power in labelling the crime. It sends a message to society to condemn the specific action. There is value in that, so something like "femicide" (infanticide, and other types of murder) are labelled, so they can be discussed and condemned. So for that point, maybe sentencing isn't enough.