Your arguments are fair, venray
And I will answer, just after I move to strike this analogy:
I argue that your analogies are not in place. Why? Because Whatever my POSITIONS are in the two issues you mentioned, I do not DO or TAKE PART in anything of the above. If you asked me if I USE escort services, for example (USE, not THINK they are ok, USE), and I answered "yes" you could call my a hipocrit. You would justly say "you lobby for a consumer boycott, you call us not to TAKE PART in cruelty, but you support yourself an industry the undoubtly abouses women". Even if you manage to make an argument that these two issues you mentioned are abusive and unjust, you will not be able to pin me as a part of it, because THOUGHTS are not ACTIONS. If you THOUGHT Animals are merely here to serve us, but wouldn't TAKE PART in chain of abuse by supporting the industry - well, so be it.
I am an Israeli (hence the broken english), and in this country the death penalty was excersized once, to the best of my knowledge, in Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann's case.
I will admit I struggle with it. Not because I think killing a Nazi criminal is anything like killing an innocent individual, but because the issue of doubt is an issue, whenever a hard penalty - especially death - is the subject.
As to abortion - that too is an issue. Once again, my moral liability in this issue is NOTHING LIKE a supporter of the meat industry to the killing of animals, because I do not make abortions, I do not push for them, and I do not pay anybody to do them, or support their "industry". If I did any of the above, then we would have do debate if an abortion is or is not murder - and if it is indeed - then, and only then, you could call me a hipocrit.
Since both these issues are not ones I take PART in on a daily basis, my moral responsibility here is not like as if I did. As somebody who does not actively supports neaither, I can allow my self not to have all the answers about them. As of abortion, It is very clear to me that the "day after" pill is something I can morally support, because there is just a "potential" to life here, but this can not be considered as an independent, living being, who suffers and has interests. It is obvious that if an abortion is made very late - it is already a living being. When and how the one turns into the other - I do not know.
That is - to your questions. But that is, not the issue.
Yes, I lobby for the cause to make this very unspiritual earthly cause, of exterminating the use, abouse, and torture of others. I try to convince, BECAUSE YOU THE PEOPLE have the power to change. Since it is THE ACTIONS OF THE CONSUMER that support that turture, it is also IN YOUR power to stop it.
My appologies. I am not trying to make an argument that I am a "rightous" person, or a "better" person, and I do appologize if in the heat of the argument I blamed you somehow in being a bad person. I do not think you are at all. But I do argue that the DEEDS, THE CHOICES, and the overall LIFESTYLE that excludes , by fact, the intensive hands on cruelty to living beings is righter - not by MY standards of right and wrong, but by YOURS. and it is, isn't it? I make the assumption that we AGREE that the torture, abuse and killing of animals is not an inertic act, but that it has a bad and abusive content to it, and that as such - there should be a REALLY REALLY GOOD REASON to do it. Given this bad content, "simply because I CAN do it" is not enough. "I just feel like doing it", isn't eaither. Only something like "I have no choice" would do, but if there is a choice - what then?
!All right,I`ll admit it! I`ve got a thing for Oriental women!I guess Uncle Sam left me in West Pac a bit too long! 
Just their food, I hope...
