I mean, of course I would say that the murder of infants is wrong (which I do believe; I feel that murder is an abominable wrong), but right there you're assuming that murder is intrinsically wrong; it's only viewed as evil because we're biased on a psychological/social (sometimes I think even a biological) level in believing that it is. I can't really justify it since I'm biased towards letting little babies live, but that's assuming that it's even possible to be truly judged, if that makes sense. I've never really thought much of this stuff though.
There is a reason I made sure to cover my bases with the description. Murder by nature is not wrong, but like anything else, it can be used wrong. I tried to state a case where there is no reason to murder.
I don't believe murder is wrong for the reasons you listed but because of the significant impact it has on the victim's life.
It not only can possibly cause them an extreme amount of pain, but it denies them of further good life, which I don't believe is a social right, but more of a natural right.
You refer to judging, which leads me to think you are referring to the fact that no man should be able to judge another man, if I interpreted that correctly.
On the assumption that you are referring to an action being judged by man, I would say that the action isn't evil because of man's judgement, but it is naturally evil.
One could argue though that the murderer actually stood to gain something which gives him a reason to do it. While that would make it morally evil, it would not be naturally evil anymore because he stood to benefit from it as opposed to a murder where he stood to gain nothing nor be impacted by the infant remaining alive.
Also, doubting someone on the internet of being younger than they are? That's a new one.
KEK.