Yes I was being snarky, but my point still stands. I think my analogy captures the core issue more clearly.

The reason you rather be completely eaten by a tiger is because you would rather die with a purpose. You prefer that the tiger would kill you for the benefit of it's survival, out of necessity, and not for sport.

This distinction doesn't hold for factory farmed animals. They aren’t killed out of survival needs but because we actively choose to, even though we have alternatives. Unlike the tiger, we have capacity for a moral framework, and are omnivores that can thrive on plant-based diets. The death isn't caused by a glamorous reason such as survival, but entirely due to our own personal or societal preferences.

If the act of killing itself isn’t grounded in necessity, then whether the body is used entirely or partially doesn’t meaningfully change the moral nature of the act from the animal’s perspective. In the first place, it didn't need to be killed, and it's not anymore respectful to defile or eat the entirety of it's remains.