10,000? 100,000? A million? The point is that probably more 'people's' lives would be saved by saving the embryos rather than the child. Even if 50% or 75% or 90% of the embryos don't make it. So yes, that you want to save the child shows that you value the child more than an embryo. Because we all know that there is a difference. You don't want the child to suffer because you can more readily empathisize with their pain. Embryos do not yet fully experience pain (or perhaps not at all depending on which sources you take). They are not the same. So valuing a woman's life, her desires for her own life and future becomes very reasonable.
I'd save one child over one hundred abortionists. Perhaps you would save one child over one hundred neo-Nazis, one hundred ICE agents, or one hundred anti-abortion legislators. All 101 humans in this scenario should still be equal under the law. The same would hold for 100 embryonic humans. Hence "valuing a woman's life, her desires for her own life and future", reasonable as it is, can't justify sanctioning abortion on demand as every successful abortion ends the life of a human being that should be equal under the law.
Here's the thing though, if I was given the option to directly destroy these 4 frozen embryos or save a child's life I think most would pick the destroying to save.
The point is that probably more 'people's' lives would be saved by saving the embryos rather than the child. Even if 50% or 75% or 90% of the embryos don't make it. So yes, that you want to save the child shows that you value the child more than an embryo. Because we all know that there is a difference. You don't want the child to suffer because you can more readily empathisize with their pain. Embryos do not yet fully experience pain (or perhaps not at all depending on which sources you take). They are not the same. So valuing a woman's life, her desires for her own life and future becomes very reasonable.