Yes and no.
I’d agree that the penumbric right of privacy exists. I wouldn’t agree that it has anything to do with abortion. Murder doesn’t become legal because you did it in a private.
The issue should clearly have been argued under the First Amendment, and yet wasn’t, nor does anyone seem willing to do so. But the point would remain that if you wouldn’t want a majority of Hindis to illegalize steak, on the basis that cows are loved by God, then you shouldn’t criminalize abortion nor try to prevent people from practice safe sex. Goo isn’t a human.
I would argue that the reason that the Old Testament told people to go to all efforts to procreate as often and fully as they can, was in the aim of out-numbering competing tribes in the Levant. And, I’ll note, that the Jews never accomplished that, despite God’s help. And the success of Christianity in Europe, the Americas, and Africa has had far more to do with politics and proselytizing than it ever did with population explosions.
So, as someone who doesn’t give a crap about God’s strategical aims on Earth, and finds it amusing that they proved incompetent over the course of 2500 years, I have no particular adherence to taking his desires into my consideration of the medical procedures I am allowed access to. Nor should Hindis or Shintoists or Buddhists. Christians are free to NOT abort their babies. They’re free to NOT marry people of the same gender. But their standard of morality is not the same as others.
And if you want to argue that goo is a human, I first ask you to smash a chicken’s head in and then tell me whether you would feel a similar sensation to break open a fertilized chickens egg that looked exactly 0 different than any one that you had bought from the supermarket, just full of cytoplasm and nucleus.
An egg is a specialized form of cell, to be granted, but it’s almost certain that within the next decade or two (if not already), we’ll be able to transform any arbitrary cell - for example, a skin cell - into an egg cell, and inseminate it. Does that now mean that it is murder for me to scratch an itch? Or only if I have semen on it?
There’s a reason that there’s a staggered set of restrictions on what is and isn’t allowed, to prevent the continuation of a pregnancy. And that reason is “biology”. Unless you can argue that it’s unreasonable to base our laws on secular considerations like science and biology, the staggered approach makes sense. And, last I checked, the mandate to use secular considerations come from the First Amendment.
Row vs. Wade avoided the real argument, and for that it’s certainly in the wrong. But the end result is in the right.