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 an abortion. Most anti-abortionists can somewhat agree 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). It seems rather mischievous. Who decides whose life is more or less important if these fetuses are truly people? Philosopher Mary Anne Warren states that there are five traits that make up personality. These five concepts include consciousness, reasoning, self-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 fall into these categories. Warren further states that if the numbers 1 through 5 are correct, then genetic humanity is not necessary to establish that something is a person. He believes that some humans are not people and that nonhumans can be considered people. I don't agree that non-people can be human beings, but I understand what he's getting at