The kkk is a terrible thing, but it kills men, women, boys and girls that can fight back.
On the other hand, the abortionist kills little babies trapped in the womb with no where to run, no where to hide and God forgive us No one to stand up and protect them.
In the Old Testament their is found the Ten Commandments, one of the place these are found is in Exodus chapter 20.
In verse 13 these words are found Thou shalt not kill. The Hebrew word translated "kill" is ratsach, it would be best pronounced as raw-tsakh'. It has nothing to do with hunting or war, it has everything to do with the taking of defenseless human life. It is a primitive root; properly meaning, to dash in pieces.
The things we do in the USA that are most defined by the word ratsach would be euthanasia and abortion. the two things that are definitely taking of defenseless human life.
I don’t believe there is a definitive answer to the question, and both types of murder being wrong, it’s probably not worth the discussion. Here are my complete thoughts on it.
Those who have died at the hands of the KKK would probably argue the point of being defenseless or not. It’s my take that the KKK didn’t kill too many people who could level any reasoned viable defense.
The taking of life is wrong. In that both the murder of the unborn and the born stand equal when IMO. Taking a life is taking a life.
The born have parents, friends, business associates, communities, and perhaps even governments that depend on them at the time of their murder. While the fetus has promise, the born have fruition. They have people who depend on them for moral, financial or duty specific reasons. The loss of the living impacts not only them but living entities that depend on them. It is not a loss that affects only the murdered individual. You would state that the loss of the unborn also impacts their future contribution, and I would certainly agree. It would not impact many people negatively in the moment. Some yes.
You can state that a child not born impacts many people down the line, even into future generations and I would certainly agree. It would not cause someone today to perhaps lose their home, their livelihood or place an ongoing project or possibly even a govenrment in jeopardy.
We both view these things terribly wrong, but if you ask me if I have great sorrow or loss that a fetus was aborted, I can only express my contempt and revulsion of the act and beyond that it becomes academic. It is wrong. If you asked me if the loss of my wife the partner who helps make my life run smoothly would impact me more, I would respond yes. I would have more sorrow and loss. I don’t believe that is a narcisistic isolated view. I believe that would be the view of most men, or women if the roles were reversed.
Now, God knowing what He does, the end from the beginning, I’m sure He can see the actual men/women who do not marry the grown up fetus. I’m sure He can see the children of that grown up fetus and know the loses of them and their progeny and contributions in ways we never will. And to Him, I think that neither you nor I are right. I’m sure He sees the loss of any living human to be equal. I would provide one caviot to that. God knows the mission each of us will carry out in life. It would seem to me that He would have had an incredible sense of loss if say Jesus had been killed before His mission was carried out. And so, I guess it could be stated that God would mourn the loss of some people more than others, simply for the missed opportunities that their life was certain to realize, something you and I can only guess at.