This case would be like the case of the mother who was not financially or emotionally ready. The future burden of this child on the mother's life constitutes abortion. Most anti-abortionists can agree, in some respects, that in cases of rape, a mother can abort the fetus. But if “all people have a right to life, but some have less of a right to life than others…those born as a result of rape” must have less (Thomson 71). This seems rather malicious. Who decides whose life is more or less important if these fetuses are actually people? Philosopher Mary Anne Warren states that there are five traits that constitute personality. These five concepts include consciousness, reasoning, motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness. A fetus that does not even have a braid or a developed body cannot fit into these categories. Warren also states that if numbers 1 through 5 are correct, then genetic humanity is not necessary to establish that something is a person. She believes that some humans are not people and that non-humans can be considered people. I don't agree that non-persons can be humans, but I understand where she's coming from.