body

as i was leaving ol' mclennen today, i notice i headline on one of the UofT news papers. it had to do with a lecture that was presented last tuesday, on abortion. i had intended to go to this lecture, but it was at 5pm, etc., etc., etc.
the title of the lecture was "abortion is genocide."
now, i would argue against that hypothesis simply on the basis that genocide is a systematic process for a specific purpose benefiting a specific group (eg. the nazis, the khmer rouge, the KKK), and there is clearly no cohesive group of people forcing women to have abortions. but that's beside the point.
the speaker was using that comparison because she felt that the common denominator between all acts of genocide is denying the personhood of the victims.

now this is where it gets interesting.
if you wanted to know my frank opinion on personhood, i think that a human does not acquire it until about 18 months of age. i base this opinion on conversations i have had with several people, all of whom identified a specific moment at about that age when they had the thought: i am me.
i too have such a recollection, at about age 2. after that i can't remember anything else until age 7 or so.
but, of course, if i went around saying that toddlers should have no more rights than a dog, people would think i'm crazy.

but let's go with this idea.
our society already condemns the mistreatment of animals. if you were to beat and starve your dog, you'd be arrested and fined. not as much, certainly, as you would be if you beat and starved your child.
but if you said "this dog will utterly ruin my life," and then kill it in the most efficient way possible, no one would blame you. your life, as a person, is worth more than the life of a non-person, even though frivolously destroying ANY life is abhorable.

so, yes, i agree that the question of the morality of abortion is a question of personhood. but that itself really is a tricky problem.

i'm curious about other pro-choice opinions. to those who are pro-choice: why?