This is utilitarian ethics. He has taken this sort of stance for some time now. You don’t necessarily have a right to life unless meet certain criteria some of which can be met by the higher species of animals. He is consistent in his arguments but is consistently wrong.
I strongly suspect that if I held a gun to Mr. Singer’s head and was about to splatter his gray matter against the nearest wall because his views made ME and most other reasonable persons UNhappy, that he would be whistling a different tune about his utilitarian “ethics”.
Ethics in it's nuance meaning is the teaching of right and wrong in the absense of God. This in reality degenerates to no more than lawyers lecturing corporate policy and the law, which is man made and subject to mob rule. So called “ethics” is by its very nature brings about outcomes that are hedonisticly motivated, situational dependent, and logically inconsistent, unlike morals that take a dentological approach and tend to actually be more consistent. If there is such a thing as truth, ethics will not bring you there, morals will.
While we don't call it as such, ethics as taught today in higher education, corporate America and government is born out of the realization of a need for ground rules governing behavior beyond simply what the law states. It is the teaching of right and wrong in a secular multicultural society where religion has been displaced in every facet it use to fill. The government runs the schools and hospitals, a bad behaviorist psychologist coaches couples to a failed marriage or talks about grief albeit offering no answers, and the ethicist talks about right and wrong vs. the pastor or priest. The field of ethics and all these sharlatons are no more than another secular component in this society that has replaced what religion use to do.