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.
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.