I think the argument is getting lucid, at least in my mind. The trick is starting from the proper assumptions that have become popular presumptions.
Yes, we must change the conversation back from ownership to commrce. The ownership of property is not to be interfered with (absent an eminent domaine issue) but the control of commerce is what the U.S. is all about.
So, for example, in 1803 it was considered useful to prohibit the importation of slaves since the “natural domestic increase” had proved sufficient and their value had to be protected. Then, when slave labor proved increasingly expensive and the practice was sought to be restricted and freedmen joined the resistance, emancipation became automatic for males.
Female participation in the political and economic arenas continued to be dominated by adult males unitl the civil rights act of 1964. Juveniles continue as chattel (moveable property) to this day. That makes it difficult to protect them without seeming to provide services the childless do not get.
Since they are not persons, children are not entitled to protection in their own right. People agitating against the unilateral premature termination of fetal development are dealing with two impossibles under current law: the designation of partially developed fetal tissue as a person (which a born child is not) and the protection of patrnal property rights in a mass of fetal tissue. Never mind that is not possible for the purported donor of the sperm to prove ownership since the evidence for the claim is not in the possession of the claimant.