For Warren, the central issue in the abortion debate is the status of the fetus as a moral person. According to Warren, a fetus, although part of the human community in the genetic sense, is not a member of the moral community as it does not meet the criteria of personhood, and therefore can rightly be eliminated. It is important to note the difference between being a biological and moral member of a community. A fetus is biologically human but that does not make it morally human; instead, as Warren presents, one must meet a set of criteria to be considered a person and part of the moral community. An interesting point is that Warren does not say that being human, or the species Homo sapiens, is a criterion of personality. This leaves the possibility for any other species that might one day meet these criteria to be considered morally personable, such as chimpanzees, dolphins, or even aliens. Warren's five criteria for personality are conscientiousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and the ability to communicate. and presence of self-concepts. While not a definition of what it means to be a person, it lists the central characteristics of moral personality. The first three in particular seem to encompass the fundamental need for cognitive functions in order to think morally. Unfortunately, a fetus cannot be said to possess any of the five criteria, except conscience, and is therefore morally comparable to a chicken or a fish. This comparison is a problem for many who argue that the fetus is a person as a human being, but as we have already noted this is not enough. "If the fetus's right to life were to be based on its resemblance to a person, then it could not be said to have any more right to life than a ... middle of paper ... en asserts that there is a difference and I am inclined to agree. "As long as the fetus is not yet born, its preservation, against the wishes of the pregnant woman, violates her rights... The moment the child is born, however, its preservation does not it no longer violates any of the mother's rights, even if she wants it destroyed, because she is free to give it up for adoption". The mother's right to interrupt an abortion depends on the violation by the fetus of the mother's rights. ' freedom such that as soon as the fetus no longer violates the mother's rights, the mother herself has no right to violate the existence of the fetus/child. Therefore Warren's argument does not support infanticide and she can safely refute the objection that her defense of. Abortion allows infanticide. Warren, M. (1982). On the moral and legal status of abortion, questions of life and death, 397-403