I would agree, mostly. I would say that there is a point during a pregnancy where it isn't about property anymore and more about murder. That point isn't as early as 14 weeks, but it isn't as late as 30 weeks. That's why I have always been able to support the original Roe v Wade decision, even if it was flawed.
From a practical perspective, I didn't have a problem with Roe v Wade. From a legal perspective, the federal government didn't have a right to dictate to the states. We've never had federal laws against murder, rape, etc. It should have always remained a state issue.
The way I see it, we need to revisit why we oppose murder in the first place before arguing our abortion stances. Before the modern doctrine of equality and human rights, there were other more tangible reasons why all societies banned murder.
My opinion is that all societies have recognized implicitly, if not explicitly, that the sudden removal of members from a tribe, especially productive members, is destabilizing. Long before the notion of inalienable rights, ancient humans would have recognized that individuals belonged to each other. A father belongs to his child, a brother belongs to his sibling(s) and parent(s), a teacher belongs to her students, a merchant belongs to his customers, etc. To unilaterally remove someone in a rogue manner is a form of theft against the community who relied on him/her in some way. Now if the community decides someone is unproductive, destructive, anti-social, or otherwise uncooperative, then killing is allowed. This is why capital punishment was always the exception to the rule against killing. Authorities may kill, but subjects may not.
So what does this rambling have to do with abortion? Well I think we need to recognize that a fetus doesn't belong to anyone besides its parents, primarily its host mother. It hasn't formed bonds with anyone in the larger community. A fetus hasn't taken its place as a provider or supplier of a product or skill valued by the community. To a large degree, this was one of the functions of initiation rituals -- a declaration to the community that an adolescent has now emerged from the sovereignty of its home (ie parents) into the realm of the community and now is now deemed an adult subject to the laws of the community's sovereign (ie monarch). What happened to the child before this rite of passage was primarily the business of the family to be handled under the parents' roof. If the parents didn't want a child, particularly as an unborn or newborn, they could always "dispose" of the child in a myriad of ways from within the privacy of their "castle." "Accidents" happen. It never had to reach the ears of magistrates, particularly in an age when many children didn't survive anyway from the harshness of real life.
I think it's useful to remember that our modern sensibilities are too easily offended because of the comforts of our age. Consider how easily offended "woke" people are in academia and in urban/metropolitan centers. As modernity brings us leisure, it softens us up to every wrong in the world, and as legacy wrongs disappear we feel the need to invent new ones. Think of how privileged we are that our basic needs are met so well that we can be obsessed with how unprepared and scared mothers deal with their unwanted pregnancies and then demand punishment if they decide they aren't fit, either physically, emotionally, or financially for 9 months of pregnancy and/or child delivery.
Then there's the issue of how so few households adopt unwanted children, the child trafficking epidemic, chronic child abuse in orphanages, etc. I might consider criminalizing abortion if and when the demand for adoption finally exceeds the supply of unwanted children ... and when war between nuclear powers isn't happening ... and when peaceful drug users aren't rotting in prison ... and when corrupt governments are no longer forcing people to consume the products of pharmaceutical companies shielded from liability...
