Hursthouse does not consider the personhood of the fetus or lack thereof, nor the rights of women. Hursthouse claims that an action is morally acceptable if a virtuous agent undertakes it. Furthermore, the virtuous agent is said to possess all the virtues that contribute to eudemonia. Hursthouse argues that deontology and act utilitarianism both share the same difficulty in determining precisely what terms such as happiness, rationality, and eudaimonia actually mean. Furthermore, she asserts that virtue ethics is not "trivially circular", engaged in reductionism, and has no strict rules or principles. Hursthouse rejects the major criticism of virtue theory that it cannot resolve moral dilemmas because it relies on virtues and the concept of "valid." Hursthouse responds to this criticism when she writes: “Acting rightly is difficult and requires moral wisdom. Virtue ethics captures this by relying on rules whose application may clearly require the most delicate and sensitive judgment” (162). In his defense of abortion, Hursthouse focuses on how biological facts might affect a moral agent's reasoning on the issue of abortion. She says these facts lead us to realize that abortion is not just another physical process, but a condition that involves strong emotional emotion.