So whose teshuvot did you read to decide this? Which sources went into your deciding that "an unborn child is a human life" is "traditional Jewish law?"
Clearly, those sources didn't include Rashi on Sanhedrin 72b, where he states flatly, in reference to the fetus, דכל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם, לאו נפש הוא ("The entire time it has not yet emerged into the air of the world, it is not a living soul"). Or Rav Chisda's opinion in Yevamot 69b, עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא ("Until the fortieth day [after the first missed menstrual period, confirming pregnancy], it is only fluid in her womb"). Or the opinion in Sanhedrin 84b, discussing Shmot 21:12 versus Bamidbar 35:30: ואיצטריך למיכתב מכה איש ואיצטריך למכתב כל מכה נפש, - דאי כתב רחמנא מכה איש ומת הוה אמינא: איש דבר מצוה - אין, קטן - לא. כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש. ואי כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש הוה אמינא, אפילו נפלים, אפילו בן שמונה, צריכי. ("It was necessary to write 'who strikes a man' [Shmot 21:12] and it was necessary to write 'any who strike a living person,' because if the Torah had written only 'who strikes a man,' I might have concluded, [one who kills] 'a man' [that is,] of Bar Mitzvah age or better is culpable, [but one who kills] a minor is not culpable. And if the Torah had written only 'any who strike a living person' [Bamidbar 35:30], I might have concluded, even a lost fetus or a nonviable premature birth [are cases involving] capital culpability"). Or any of the other sources which I cited, that you chose to ignore.
Your position is not "traditional Jewish law," it is one position, one school of thought within traditional Jewish law. It's fine if you want to hold that way, but you can't say it's the only position or school of thought on the subject. There are others that are just as supportable. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them illegitimate.
If you don't want to take the time to read teshuvot and study the sources they use, fine. But in that case, you can hardly criticize the conclusions they come to.