You continue to ignore the fact that this thread is about embryos that are not within a woman's uterus - she has no uterus to empty, thus any purported penumbral dilemma of privacy vs. life and liberty is not relevant.
These embryos are of the human species: they are men, in the sense that that word is a generic term for the species. As such, the embryos have the right not to be killed. Where does R v W affect these embryos except as an extreme extrapolation?
The right not to be killed is fragile, as you have shown. When other men decide that some men are not quite as human enough for protection under the law, we end up with a weakening of the rights of all. Chief Justice Taney argued that Dred Scot did not have the right to life and liberty, so the abolutionists were breaking the law and at risk of prison and fines. Chief Justice Blackmun decided that the "non-viable" do not have the right not to be killed when the woman whose womb they depend on for life does not want them to live, and so it has been the "non-viable" at other stages in life and in other circumstances are deemed not to have the right to life.
The rights of humans are inalienable and exist from their creation as human. This means from fertilization or manipulation/germination in the laboratory.
The rights of humans are inalienable and come to exist as viability is attained in a pregnancy/gestation. Fertilization or manipulation/germination in a laboratory 'creates' nothing but a fertilized embryo with the potential of becoming human being.