It's not necessarily the most important thing on my list, but it happens to be the first one I'm addressing.
Supposedly, trophy hunting helps support conservation efforts in Africa and improves the local economy.
And how is that any different from saying selling human baby parts for research makes the killing of a baby A-okay?
Allow me to make my position very clear.
I think trophy hunting is stupid. And, this will probably tick off anyone that has a deer head hanging on their wall, I think that's really weird, too.
The entire world is in an uproar over Cecil the Lion being killed in Africa by a dentist from Minnesota, while almost nothing is said about Planned Parenthood culling little parts from murdered human babies.
William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection had this to say:
I don't agree, Mr Jacobson, but I support your right to say whatever you wish.What is not good, in my mind, is trying to score points by noting how the mainstream media has paid more attention to Cecil than to the aborted babies in the Planned Parenthood scandal. One has nothing to do with the other, and in a perverse way, it almost draws a moral equivalency to argue that the abortion scandal should have received more coverage because of coverage of Cecil. source
We're not trying to "score points", and I'm not quite sure where, and with whom, we would be scoring all those points, or for what purpose. I do understand what you're trying to express, and that your final conclusion about moral equivalency is correct.
However, we are simply making an observation; an observation that does not reflect well on any pro-abortion believer's outrage over a lion being killed. To suggest that we are trying "to score points" could have been left out of your otherwise fine article.
These events do not constitute an either/or scenario. Neither event should be taking place.