As humans, we are given different rights that are meant to provide us with a chance at a good life. However, these rights can become compromised when it comes to conflicts between a pregnant woman and her fetus. The right of the fetus to live is seen as inferior to the right of the mother to have an abortion. Although each of the rights is different, it is not appropriate to say that one citizen’s rights are more superior than another citizen’s rights. Mary Anne Warren establishes a belief that a fetus’s right to live is overruled by an expecting mother’s right to an abortion because it is not a technically a true person until it is born. Warren supports her argument by saying that a nearly full-developed fetus is no more significant than a small embryo because “…it is not fully conscious… it cannot reason or communicate message… and has no self-awareness” (Warren, page 499). In contrast, our text states that “…some fetuses develop the capacity to survive outside the womb…” after nearly being two-thirds fully developed; this means that a fetus is ultimately capable of communication and awareness through it’s movements (Munson and Lague, page 469). Warren’s claim is meant to support the idea that is acceptable to abort a fetus, which is considered a “potential person,” no matter what stage of development it is in because that would then be taking away the rights of the woman, which is considered an actual person. Unlike Warren, Patrick Lee and Robert P George claim “…