Only God can gave and take life.

I'm simply going to address each of your premises one by one just to keep things simple. "I believe that only God can give and take life because God is the one who gave us life in the first place" This is fine, yet it is only a personal belief as you said so you shouldn't inflict this belief, and its consequences, upon people who do not necessarily agree with you. An atheist may simply believe that life has not been given to us by a supreme being, rather it comprises of a series of biological processes, hence making your first premise, in their view, wrong. "we should respect that and die naturally, not take our own life" Again this argument is based of your own opinion which is, by definition, OPNION. Just because a group of people believe something it isn't therefore true. The Nazi's may have held some less savoury views about the Jewish race, dent mean we all have to leap to fulfil the mass genocide Hitler started. My point is that you are welcome to believe that, in your subjective view, abortion and euthanasia are wrong but we don't all have to share that view. "I believe that all forms of Euthanasia and abortion are wrong as it is not allowed in my religion." I have addressed most of this already, but I'll just add a little more. Your entire argument is an argument from authority, an authority which not everyone shares. There is no point making an argument based solely on claim which is highly opinionated. " Life is a gift from God and we should take care of it just like we would take care of any other gift a person gives to us." Another argument from authority here, the same authority that I may not believe in. Also I believe you are conflating life with physical objects. Life is not a physical property, which can be given or taken away, like a present. Life is not a gift but instead something which is simply as a result of scientific processes. After addressing your points I shall add on a few arguments against abortion and euthanasia, which are not based on a non-universal authority. A woman is an autonomous being, and bodily autonomy is a basic human right. A fetus, which is biologically dependent on the mother for sustenance, has yet to acquire bodily autonomy as it cannot self-govern due to this dependence. A fetus is not it's own being. A frequent counterargument to the claim of bodily autonomy revolves around the concept of fetal harm. In other words, a pro-life argument may fall along the lines of "what if the woman does something harmful to the fetus, such as smoking or drinking, thus impacting it"s life after birth?" If a woman intends on bringing child into the world, then she has accepted the responsibility to protect that fetus. That being said, a woman who has no intention to carry a pregnancy to term is not under the same obligation. An additional counter argument worth noting considers the issue of life support. If a fetus has yet to earn bodily autonomy due to the factor of dependence, does a person on life-sustaining support lack autonomy as well? What this argument fails to consider through such a comparison is the pivotal issue of sustenance. While the person on life support requires other people to provide care, this person does not depend on a physical connection to receive that sustenance. A fetus, in comparison, requires a physical attachment to the mother within the womb to survive until birth. A fetus is a body, but it is not a physically, biologically independent body. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death. A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." (ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Dec. 10, 1996)