The parallel situation would be if the man married a new woman, they couldn't get children and the man wanted 'his' 'old' zygotes to be born (couple of months later) by his new wife."?

There is a difference in that the involvement and suffering undergone by the genetic mother in any IVF procedure is of course very considerably more than the father, and it could be argued that this would mean that there could reasonably be some sympathy for her in this situation. (I cannot conceive how anyone can have much "sympathy" for the men involved in this case.) However, aside from that it would be a parallel situation. But why should it be seen as wrong for a man in this hypothetical case to want this?

"In the US, the fetus is not considered a human being." Well, that is interesting, but it does not stop it being the case that a human fetus is a human being, at an early stage of development, just as the fetus of a cat is a cat, at an early stage of development. The question as to whether killing a human fetus is murder is a separate question from whether he or she is human.

I am still puzzled at the notion that defending the "right to choose" on the part of women in general should be seen as justifying the fact that in this situation the right of two women to choose is to be denied.