The infanticide objection points out that infants (indeed up to about one year of age, since it is only around then that they begin to outstrip the abilities of non-human animals) have only one of Warren's characteristics—consciousness—and hence would have to be accounted non-persons on her view; thus her view would permit not only abortion but infanticide. Warren agrees that infants are non-persons (and so killing them is not strictly murder), but denies that infanticide is generally permissible. For, Warren claims, once a human being is born, there is no longer a conflict between it and the woman's rights, since the human being can be given up for adoption. Killing such a human being would be wrong, not because it is a person, but because it would go against the desires of people willing to adopt the infant and to pay to keep the infant alive. Although, this clarification has critics of its own: beef cattle, chickens, or any other livestock raised for meat—or indeed even some plants—have supporters who would pay to keep the animals alive. However, a response to these supports might be that, while livestock, plants, and infants are all not morally persons, the infant is the only life that can be designated a human being. Thus, Warrens argument does suggest an inherent value for the life of human beings that are not persons over lives that do not have the potential for becoming a person.