Yeah, but in that case we have someone choosing to harm others when they could do so with no negative consequence to themselves. So we decide preventing that outweighs not controlling that person.

The reason abortion is so controversial ethically is because both scenarios involve what some people consider a type of harm: forcing someone to not have an abortion has a significant impact on their body while having one prevents a potential life or life.

The reason this isn't hypocrisy is because veganism isn't intended to be an all encompassing answer to every ethical problem. It's simply saying that all else being equal, where possible, we should not exploit, control or harm an animal.

If you assume a fetus is a sentient being, then allowing abortion means harming a sentient being, but regardless of what you assume, prohibiting it involves controlling a person. It's a no win situation.

When you have a no-win scenario and you have to pick one of the choices, there's no way to make a choice that doesn't involve "harm". That doesn't mean there's any hypocrisy or flaws with veganism. It just means that there are some questions which are potentially independent of the ethics of veganism.

This also isn't a problem unique to veganism. Abortion is such a dominating issue politically because it creates no-win scenarios in our ethical systems between the belief in bodily autonomy and the belief in value of potential life. That means to make the choice we need additional ethical assumptions beyond our past ethical systems, and beyond veganism. The choice in most countries is becoming that bodily autonomy of an already born person supersedes the right to potential life of a fetus. But obviously there are many who disagree. The point back to the original question though is it's outside the scope of veganism. There's no hypocrisy in saying we shouldn't kill an animal for food when we can eat beans and grains instead while at the same time taking either position on abortion.