(Speaking purely logically; not morally; I am not claiming belief of these statements one way or the other) If you believe that: A) a mother may choose to let

(Speaking purely logically; not morally; I am not claiming belief of these statements one way or the other) If you believe that: A) a mother may choose to let someone end the life of her own human fetus; and B) animals have no right to control their own bodies, then I don't see why there's any dissonance to believe: → a human may choose to end the life of an animal's human-like fetus. It does not violate (A): the human-like fetus is no more special than a human fetus. It does not violate (B): the mother's right to control her own body/fetus does not exist, since the mother is a non-human animal. Do you see it differently? How so? I suppose one could make the case that, a human mother/embryo is a single symbiotic organism, which expresses its collective will through the mother. This new animal mother/human-like embryo symbiotic organism should be afforded some of the same rights as a fully human mother/embryo, but is unable to express its will due to the limitations of the mother. Therefore the embryo's right to life, which it could normally choose to waive through its human mother, is violated, since its animal mother is unable to communicate as much. But I'm guessing that's not how you (or anyone else) are looking at the situation. (Personally (and I'm not making an argument here, just an observation), as someone who believes (A) but not (B), I can't get agitated at this study; by my moral measure the violation of the animal mother's rights is way tamer than so many other ways animals' rights are violated in the name of science.)