Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it.
You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.
Well, "life" began 4 billion years ago and has been around continuously since then. The question isn't when an embryo or fœtus becomes "alive", but when it qualifies as a
human life.
To me, the important issue here isn't the definition of a "life", but rather the question of the mother-to-be's commitment. If the opportunity is presented to abort at, say, 5 weeks pregnancy, and the mother chooses to keep the baby, then it is unreasonable to say "I changed my mind" at 15 or 20 or 25 weeks, regardless of the state of the fœtus. Conversely, if the opportunity is not available (due to legal or circumstantial restrictions) at an early stage, then an abortion at 15 weeks
may make more sense. But the decision to commit (or not) to pregnancy should be made as early as possible to avoid undue suffering on the part of the fœtus, and then once the commitment is made, it should be permanent (with obvious exceptions for life-threatening cases).
On the point about artificial wombs, I don't think that it makes sense to say that just because a zygote would eventually become a human baby, it is best to let it develop. Is bringing a child into an abusive family or an orphanage better than preventing it from ever existing? I know there are some who would say yes, but at the very least it should be clear that there are a variety of reasonable views on that question.
So, once again, we come to the issue being more complex than it first appears.