In Macbeth, (II.iv), is there a purpose to murdering Macduff's son dramatically on stage & not showing the murder of Lady Macduff?

I would expect that this question is based upon opinion.
My opinion is as follows.

In Shakespeare's
Macbeth, I would assume that the murdering of Macduff's son (who is
called "Son"—"Egg" is a nickname by the murderer) is not something that would upset an
Elizabethan audience as much as the murder of a woman. (By comparison, today's audience
would be upset at the death of both.) A young boy would have—not too long before
this—been a squire to a knight at a young age. Squires did not fight, but served their
lord in battle, which did not guarantee their safety. The idea of women fighting was an
Anglo-Saxon concept, not an Elizabethan one. (However, Joan of Arc would have been the
most recent example of a woman fighting, around 1431—not that long before the play was
written.)

In my opinion, the fact that the boy tries to
stop the murderers shows that he is valiant at a young age, Macduff's son completely.
This, and Young Siward's death on the battlefield, would have vividly shown the depth to
which Macbeth has fallen since killing Duncan—he now casually takes the lives of women
and children. The boy's death would have upset the audience but they would have been
gratified by his willingness to defend his mother and family. The murder of Lady Macduff
off-stage would have less offended the audience than watching it acted out before
them.