death penalty and abortion should be illegal

"abortion should be taken the same as a man killing an animal for pure sport." I would like to point out that killing an animal for pure sport is not the only way to unjustifiably kill an animal. There is no problem with you not writing out all other trivial reasons that would make animal killing unjustifiable, because those reasons would just be waste of time to mention since we both know what they are and we both understand each other (and I'm pretty sure our readers' imagination is fertile enough to think of other cruel ways to kill animals). However, there is one problem because you are overlooking a reason that is not necessarily obvious (or trivial): that killing an animal for consumption may not be justified. Today someone can lead a healthy vegetarian diet, which makes killing animals unnecessary and thus unjustified. "i do NOT believe abortion should be a more pressing issue than the unjustified killing of animals as i believe we are all God's creatures. i DO believe however that the only justification for killing an animal comes from the intent of the killer. if the killer soley uses the animals flesh as means of helping his family stay nourished, then it is acceptable. AGAIN this comes from the bible which i know has no meaning to you so i can easily understand why this point would seem completely ridiculous." The point is not ridiculous at all, even if I do not believe that the Bible is always right. I would also like to say that the Bible has very important historical meaning for me -- if not everyone -- because it has significantly impacted the way people have behaved throughout centuries of human history. Now that that's settled, back to your point. You do say "if the killer soley uses the animals flesh as means of helping his family stay nourished, then it is acceptable." I could not agree with you more. In the present day, however, people no longer rely solely on animal's flesh to nourish their family, as I previously mentioned with my point about leading a vegetarian life. Thus, killing animals cannot be acceptable today since animal's slaughtering is not necessarily justified. Morality & Practicality "let me just say this, if you choose to think of abortion from any viewpoint other than that of "moral or not", i ask you, what does the ending argument result in? it results in whether or not you think it is absolutely necessary for the woman to have an abortion." The way I manage to avoid the morality of the issue is by taking morals that you already have and using them to my own advantage. By showing that your morals contradict, I am able to prove my point without discussing the morality of the argument: indeed, I did not have to go into issues of morality to prove you wrong. Specifically in this debate, all I had to do in this case is show that the morals that you have regarding the slaughtering of animals conflict with the morals you have regarding abortion. In this way, I circumvent having to show that "abortion is OK" from a moral perspective, and use a practical and logical approach to prove you wrong. "you cannot justify a point that you canceled out in your own argument." I was "justifying" an extension of my point, which is a different point by itself. Thus, I am "justifying" a point that is different from the one I "canceled out." In other words, all I'm saying is that they're different points. Honestly, I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by this statement. I do not understand how I "canceled out" or how I "justified" my first point. I think that there may have been a misunderstanding regarding this quote, so I apologize in advance if such is the case.