They truly do value the woman's health than a human life.

Let's first rephrase:

They truly do value the woman's life over a human life.

There are countless varied reasons a woman may feel the need for an abortion. The situation could be literal life-or-death for her, in which case my rephrase would be literally true. Even if not, it's foolish to suggest that the only thing at stake for said woman is her health. Child-bearing and rearing fundamentally and permanently alter a person's life. They certainly don't only impact a woman's physical health. So, I say, a life for a life - not health for a life.

Are all lives equal?

If you have a body but you can't live in it - you can only survive if you tack your body onto a healthy, self-sufficient person's and feed through them, regulate through them, etc - then are you really a person?

I do not particularly believe in souls. I think our consciousness is made by the firing of our synapses. If you have a body but can't live in it, it sounds to me like you can't really be counted as alive. A body that can't sustain life - is it even a body? Don't bodies have to be alive, have to be able to breathe, drink, swallow, send impulses through your brain, make your organs do all that shit they do without your conscious thought, etc, in order to be bodies, even?

If your body can't keep you alive then you aren't alive. Maybe you could be some day. Or maybe you won't ever be again. But it's false to claim something's alive when it lacks the structure and biological ability to sustain its own supposed life.