She gives as an example a hypothetical woman who seeks a late-term abortion "just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad" and declares this to be "positively indecent".
Thomson also explicitly rejects the claim that pregnant women have a right to kill their offspring.
[If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right.
The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.
Thomson concedes that a third party indeed cannot make the choice to kill either the person being crushed or the child.Her argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help.They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.But by this logic, she says, any woman could avoid pregnancy due to rape by simply having a hysterectomy – an extreme procedure simply to safeguard against such a possibility.Thomson concludes that although there may be times when the fetus does have a right to the mother's body, certainly in most cases the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body.The fact that she does adds to the offensiveness of deducing that the mother can do nothing from the supposition that third parties can do nothing.But it does more than this: it casts a bright light on the supposition that third parties can do nothing.If the doctor refuses, then the woman is denied her right.To base the woman's right on the accordance or refusal of a doctor, she says, is to ignore the mother's full personhood, and subsequently, her rights to her body.If we say that no one may help the mother obtain an abortion, we fail to acknowledge the mother's right over her body (or property).Thomson says that we are not personally obligated to help the mother but this does not rule out the possibility that someone else may act.