Kriss disagree Stephen Law's idea

From the main idea of Stephen Law about morally wrong when we eat meat and we should be vegetarian after I read the essay I think that it is not wrong to eat meat. If we not consume animal meat because of morality, Our body would not get some nutrient because human body can not synthesise nutrient. Anyways, There are 3 groups of animal lives on earth. First of all is herbivorous. The second group is carnivorous. The last group of them is both plant and animal consumer. The humans are the third group because we need some nutrient from plants and animals. If we lack nutrient, our body would be not healthy. Furthermore, I don't thinking about morally wrong when I ate meat or other animal because I believe that I eat for healthy life. For the Question " Where is he wrong?" I think that he is not wrong whre he decide to be vegetarian but he should find other source of essential nutrient for life if he want to be strong. According to Stephen Law's main idea I disagree with him because he doesn't wrote about necessary nutrient but he said only morality. He should show the idea how we get good thing when we are vegetarian. Moreover, he over think about morality (he compare between baby and animal). Therefore, we kill animal not for fun but for food. In contrast, who are killing animals for the game I think that is strongly wrong in morality. However, if we have another source of nutrient same as animal we should select that food because every animal loves its life.