To kill simply means to put a living thing to death. A fetus (human or otherwise) is a living thing. I don't know what the purpose of your link was, or how it has anything to do with the misuse of words above. Unless you think I'm implying that all forms of killing are the same, which obviously I'm not. That being said "killing <animal> fetus" is merely a subset of "killing <animal>" by basic logic. Were you implying otherwise by citing that link?

"Foeticide (or feticide) is the act of killing a fetus, or causing an abortion."

Abortion stops a pregnancy and a pregnancy is the production of a human life.

You are also not killing sperm by using a tissue, neither do you kill an egg.

You also don't kill an embryo as those things are not alive.

Just because a biological mechanism started doing what it is programmed to do, doesn't make it alive.

Would you argue that a virus is alive?

When do you draw your line of a biological machine becoming alive?

> That being said "killing <animal> fetus" is merely a subset of "killing <animal>" by basic logic.

No, that is not logical. Killing a caterpillar is not killing a butterfly. Known forms of life are not absolute in classification. You have decided to classify a fetus as a subset and others do not. Good luck with whatever.

They're still the same animal though (e.g. a butterfly caterpillar vs a moth caterpillar). The only distinction, which is specific to this case, is that the words caterpillar and butterfly imply a stage of development where the word human does not, making it a poor analogy. I just want people to stop trying to change the definition of words for the sake of perception.