One of my children is from adopted or donated embryo. To me, it is same as adopting, once there is an actual child on the way. So I definitely see the good in third party parenting for personal reasons, though like your child, my little embryo was “needy” and we are giving her a normal childhood.
Where a person is prenatally adopting an already-created, already-at-risk embryo, this is a good thing, exactly because it is responding to the needs of an already-existing child who would perish otherwise.
From that perspectoive, it is like adopting a 3-year-old --- even more exact;ly, a medically-endangered 3-year-old --- who needs special procedures in order to survive, into a family that is willing and able to supply those procedures. Say, a kid who needs kidney surgery.
So your case -- embryo adoption --- is different in a crucial aspect: it does not deliberately "create the need."
Laboratory embryo-creating and embryo-freezing itself should be banned, because (among other reasons) it results in the creation of offspring that are absolutely stranded, and can be abandoned or disposed of at will. That was the upshot of the Marysville TN court case, which ruled that embryos are property, not people.
No part of the argument against IVF/surrogacy, is an argument against adoption. Adoption is a just and generous response to the needs of an already-existing child.
It is not paying for a child be to created and handed over for you per a commercial contract.
Kids are deprived of their natural father and mother by tragedy, sad circumstance, or chance. No child should be deprived by choice.