The Georgia abortion law states "unborn children are a class of living, distinct person." Even if that were true, it wouldn't lead to the conclusion that abortion after six weeks is wrong. It is easy to imagine cases where killing living, distinct people is not morally wrong. In particular, situations where a person is incapable of consciousness represent cases in which we have no moral obligations to the person. Let's say someone had a major brain injury and is incapable of conscious experiences. We can neither harm them nor help them because they do not have the ability to have experiences of any kind. Such a person would have no more moral significant than a rock.
Fetuses prior to 24 weeks have no capacity for conscious experience because they do not have the necessary brain structures to be conscious. Therefore, the questions of whether they are living or a person or a human are irrelevant. None of those things are sufficient for moral value. Capacity for consciousness is a necessary component of morally-relevant creatures, and fetuses prior to 24 weeks don't have that.
Surely proponents of the law would counter that fetuses have the potential for consciousness. That is true, but so do sperm. Sperm have the potential to undergo major physical changes, such as mating with an egg and incubating in a womb, and become conscious. Potential for conscious experience is only a factor in broad-strokes, "maximizing total happiness in the world" sort of considerations.