Thank you for your response Beachcomber. However, there are problems.
According to my above suggestion, in a society in which women, our sexed bodies and our time and energy were awarded equal status to that awarded to men (or ideally a society in which the entire concept of status of humans was foreign and or rejected) the value of all childbearing and consequently all children would be perceived equally by women and men.
If gender is embodied then gendered differences will always exist. Men and women will always be different - not just on a basic biological level but as gendered identities. In that case, different values will always be inferred from those identities. As you say yourself, women who go through pregnancy have a higher valuation of the life they produce. That is close to saying, in my view, that women have a superior innate capacity for caring and nurturing than men. In that sense, according to your logic, they are valued differently.
However, you believe that in spite of gender identity being embodied, a world is nevertheless possible where men and women are valued differently but awarded equal status. That at some point the honour killings, family annihilation, gendercide, sex selective abortion, prostitution, domestic violence, FGM, child marriage, rape culture etc would just disappear.
The problem is, valuing things different is very close to according them different status.
What I would say is that there will always be systems of status in the world. And there will always be the abuse of power. It's just that organisations of power are never fixed. They change and reconfigure. When communism collapsed new structures of power calcified in its place, for example.
Patriarchy is a system of power that has become stuck for a very long time When it dies out (and it will at some point) then new systems of status will replace it.
To imply that a post-patriarchal future would not feature new status systems and expressions of violence is to imply that women are innately different to men - kinder, more nurturing, more given to cooperation than competition. This is not so. Women are just like men - hugely variable from individual to individual, kind, caring, heroic, magnanimous, selfless, perverted, hateful, power-hungry, sadistic, cruel, merciless, tyrannical, barbarous. In other words human. They are socialised differently, and have different advantages in society so overall patterns of gendered behaviour are apparent, but these patterns are not fixed by nature.
Women are not born more caring or nurturing than men. They are just born into a society dominated by men - in which most of the the great statesman, artists, scientists etc have been men, and most of the most evil people have been men. And they are socialised to believe that this is the case because men are innately more given to painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and serial killing while women. But they're not. We know very well that in history thousands of female Rembrandt's have died without every putting paint to paper because a women's place was considered to be in the kitchen or the bed and they never got the opportunity or even considered the possibility; and I'm sure there were also lots of potential female Jeffrey Dahlmer's and Harold Shipman's to whom it never occurred to put their darkest impulses into practice because they were raised to believe murder and torture is a job for the boys.
`Look at politics and you will see in that in power the few women that gain power are just like men. Some are great and some are not. For every Caroline Lucas there's a Marine Le Pen.
Women do not value life more as a result of being pregnant. They value life more, overall, because they have been socialised over millennia to believe that they are the ones who do all the nurturing and the caring.
Unfortunately 'a society in which the entire concept of status of humans was foreign and or rejected' is never, ever going to be a reality. That's just not how human beings are.