Interfaith Group

"how it decides who is valuable and who is not."

At the stage in development where this is an actionable issue, there is no 'who'.

"The argument is being made about the value of the individual once born, not while in the uterus."

Again, if the issue is corrected in utero, there is no individual to value or not value. No who, no person.
That line of argumentation, and the 'value once born' argument is the same as this common trope:

"Pro life thinkers believe that often times the decision to abort is made by inexperienced teens who do not know what they are doing, and are not capable of making an educated choice. They think that it's possible to take away societal contributions that could potentially be made by the unborn baby. For all the woman knows her child could cure cancer or be the next Einstein."

If-then. If it is born, congrats, personhood achieved. That's the legal/ethical bar we have today in the united states and in many other nations around the world. Discussing rights or value prior to that plays directly into the hands of the anti-abortion crowd who seek to limit a woman's right to choose, by among other things, leaning on some artificial potential future value the fetus might have when it attains personhood.

Surely you've heard the 'might find the cure for cancer' trope before? (And the common pro-choice rejection of that potential by pointing out it could easily be the next XYZ horrible genocidal dictator)