Ownership, Creation, and Personhood

When trying to determine the criteria for "personhood", people seem to place a lot of- and, in my opinion, too much- emphasis on the creator and/or owner of the person.  As Davies points out, we cringe at the sight of an instrument being destroyed, not solely because of the craftsmanship involved in making it or our respect for the owner, but because they have a certain status of importance which may or not be considered honorary personhood.  It's not about offending the person who created it or the person who paid good money for it and now owns it.  If an instrument is an honorary person, it is because it has value that is independent from it's relationship with a human.  Similarly, a person in a vegetative state has value regardless of whether or not he or she has any living relatives that care about him or her. 

Today in class I brought up the hypocritical stance many people take on the issue of abortion.  People think that a woman should be allowed to choose to terminate her fetus, but if someone murders her and her fetus, it is considered double homicide.  Our society and our laws place more emphasis on ownership of the fetus than the fetus' status as a person.  If a woman should have the right to abort her fetus simply because she created it, then shouldn't she also have the right to kill her newborn infant?  What about her teenage son or daughter?  She still created him or her.  Obviously, this emphasis on ownership and creation cannot be applied to all stages of human life.  To me, the abortion issue is about the value of life and the value of a person- not the right to choose, a woman's right to privacy, or women's ownership of their body.  Interestingly enough, I identify as a feminist and feel extremely passionate about women's rights.  I do not, however, feel that abortion is a women's rights issue.  To regard abortion as simply "a woman's choice" undermines and even insults the fetus' value and importance.  A woman and a man (men are so disregarded in the abortion debate and it really saddens me) create a child, and according to the law they do own it.  But that isn't what makes it valuable.  The fetus still has an identity separate from it's parents, whether or not it is aware of that.  

I agree with Davies that personhood is a degree of importance and value separate from human relationships and attachments.  Sure, a musician will feel upset when they see an instrument destroyed or abused- but not because it's a waste of money or because they are deeply concerned with respecting the person who made it.  If a musical instrument is an honorary person, then it has a special, independent significance.  Similarly, a human fetus has personhood regardless of it's creators'/owners' relationship to it.  The abortion debate has been turned into something it's not- an issue of choice and feminism.  To make it into a women's issue takes away from the real issue- the fetus and it's status as a person. 

Question:  Do non musicians tend to regard musical instruments in the same way musicians do?  If not, than are musical instruments only honorary persons to musicians?  Shouldn't an honorary person be universal and not specific to individuals?