Marquis, a distinguished anti-abortion philosopher, has stated that “the future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children…it follows that abortion is prima facie seriously wrong.” According to him, killing a fetus is nothing but killing a human being since the fetus is a future resemblance of a human being which makes abortion morally wrong. He added that killing a fetus certainly implies a potential loss of value. All pro-life activists believe that killing children and infants is wrong in the same way as it is killing any human being (as qt. in Marquis, 1989, 184-185). To counteract the premises of Marquis, Mary A. Warren, a well-known pro-abortion feminist philosopher deduces the following anti-abortion argument: 1) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings, 2) fetuses are innocent human beings, and 3) therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses. She alleges that the reasonability of this anti-abortion argument is based on the misrepresentation of the term ‘human being’. She considers humans from two different aspects – the genetic sense and the moral sense. The human in the generic sense refers to all beings who are members of the biological species Homo sapiens and incorporates not only functioning children and adults but also fetuses (even very early fetuses) and alive human bodies without working brains (e.g. those in irretrievable comas). The human in the moral sense refers to all beings who are full-grown members of&nbsp.the moral community and includes all but only persons. Warren further states that if ‘human being’ has the same meaning in both the settings then one of them is questionable. The argument either presumes that it is incorrect to kill a fetus simply because it is a homo sapient or it is a member of the moral community.&nbsp.