The tension is this. I acknowledge the characterisation of the unborn child by Melissa Lee, and she also goes on to talk about the applicability of the Human Rights Act if that unborn child would go on to "become a human being". So what we have here, highlighted by Melissa Lee's SOP 479, is a situation where we're talking about a potential scenario according to the legal fiction that seems to be holding sway in this case that we can have an unborn child who is not a human being. Indeed, we can have a child who is not a human being, which in semantic terms is an absurdity. It's a logical absurdity that you could have a child being a subset of a human being described as not yet a human being on the basis of a legal fiction that she is not yet at that point able to be described as such. 