system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: To remain logically consistent, a vegan who believes it is unethical to kill sentient animals unnecessarily must also believe it is unethical to unnecessarily abort human fetuses once they have become sentient.

This is not to suggest that vegans can’t rationally be pro-choice, indeed they can (bodily autonomy), but to remain consistent with the moral motivations of veganism, they must at least concede that killing a sentient fetus is unethical if the procedure is medically unnecessary. Just as they believe killing animals for meat is unethical when it is dietarily unnecessary.

Bear in mind this is only about the ethical, not legal, considerations of abortion as it relates to the vegan philosophy. 

To use a comparative example, a person can be opposed to marital infidelity on ethical grounds without also thinking it should be made illegal.

Basically, you can rationally justify being a pro choice ethical vegan, but only up to a point (I.e. the 20-25 week mark when sentience is established). Beyond this point you cannot consider unnecessary abortions to be ethical without being logically inconsistent.

Again to surmise, if you think it is unethical to unnecessarily kill sentient animals for food you must likewise think unnecessary abortions of sentient fetuses are also unethical.
gpt
>but to remain consistent with the moral motivations of veganism, they must at least concede that killing a sentient fetus is unethical if the procedure is medically unnecessary.

"The right of subjects-of-a-life not to be harmed can be overridden by other moral principles". Ethical veganism does allow for other morals to take precedence over preserving something's life. Many are fine with mercy killing a wounded animal so as not to prolong its suffering. Most seem fine with prioritizing a woman's right to bodily autonomy over the fetus's right to life.

So it is demonstrably logically consistent to be both pro-choice and an ethical vegan.