Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil. It's very existence is so that one day someone could consume it. It is the reason someone bred and reared it in the first place. Without animal husbandry, the animal would never have existed. And I need to eat in order to survive. Vegetarians will argue I can live on vegetables, but I don't have 4 stomachs and I do have incisor teeth and a digestive system build to cope with meat. Meat and animal fats are part of a healthy diet.
Extinguishing the future of a person is a little bit different. To me, anyway.
You (inadvertently, I think) just uncovered my main objection to the pro-life people. Many vegetarians do indeed argue that we shouldn't kill animals for food, and they try as hard as they can to suggest healthy alternatives. What they don't do is try to outlaw eating meat
1.
You're morally objected to abortions. That's fine. It's a sensible stance to hold, and you're well within your rights to try to convince others that it's immoral or unethical. However, it's clear to me that this is not a unanimous stance within society, and I don't see why we would impose restrictive laws based on the views that aren't widely agreed upon.
That said, there's also an argument to be made against the government funding of Planned Parenthood. Pretending to be a pro-lifer for a moment: why should my tax dollars support something that I'm morally objected to? I mean, sure, we can just respond to that with "ur dumb" and move swiftly on, but as far as I know that's not how Western liberal democracies work.
1 - Okay, some do, but they appear to be a very insignificant minority. It's definitely not as widespread an issue as among American "progressives" or pro-lifers.