An abortion is a result of a choice being made by a person after a set of real life and possibly unexpected events have happened.

The research is carefully planned in advance. This was genetically engineered to be terminated.

So while I do think you've asked a relevant question, I think the ethical questions the two things raise are actually very far apart.

There's a spectrum here.

At one end, religious folks believe life and soul begins at conception. Some also believe tampering with genes is tampering with god's creation.

At the other end, atheists believe in so soul.

Some believe personhood doesn't begin until a being is able to think, feel, and reflect upon the world around it. They hold that cetaceans have higher consciousness than human babies. They wouldn't have issue with this.

Plenty of people with no monotheistic belief feel nature shouldn't be tampered with.

Many scientists view biology as a machine that should be probed and studied.

The "choice" argument is one of the counter arguments used by those that are pro-life. I think many of them would object to these experiments on different grounds.

The ethics are complicated and messy. The science is rather straightforward.

By "religious folks", do you mean "modern Christianity"? Even then, I think it may be less of a given than you realize. For example, Thomas Aquinas wrote that an embryo is "ensouled" some months after conception.

Not all religions. The Qu’ran states that the soul enters the body exactly 40 days after conception, for example.

But you're right, the argument (c) the woman's autonomy rights trump the fetus's rights but only when the fetus was unintended does indeed indicate the monkey operation was unethical. I'm not so sure that (c) is a very logical position though.

This is something different, this is the first time this has been done, there was signs that their brains were going to be similar to ours, meaning possibly self aware and intelligent, I dunno, like i say, i'm not even sure which I feel like is the ethical choice...

Like I say, I find it hard to describe how I feel about it all.

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.)

This is good, I like people that can recognize this. Cognitive dissonance should hurt. It's the people who can't feel it that I worry about being around...

Cognitive dissonance? Sorry to be snarky.