To uproot a rabbit

There are rabbinic jurists who make it easy to castrate a female (as in humans) and claim that it is a rabbinic prohibition. Strange things, because in animals there is no obligation to perform a ritual sacrifice. But even so, it is still a prohibition. If you were doing it for your own needs, perhaps there would be room for leniency (after all, castration is no worse than slaughter), although this is also a bit of a rabbinic treason. The same applies to a situation in which the rabbit will not be able to give birth anyway (because there is no male available for her to give birth to). In any case, here you are not doing it for your needs, but for the needs of the animal. I think the reasons you gave are not sufficient to permit a prohibition. After all, after the rabbit suffers, then you do it. But breaking a prohibition in advance because she might need it later seems to me to be an insufficient reason to permit a prohibition.