Is a pregnant woman always responsible for the fetus that lives inside her? In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson adopts the position that “the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (212) for her argument. A person has the right to life, which leads some to believe that abortion can never be a morally permissible act. However, even during pregnancy, women reserve considerable freedom over their bodies. Thomson uses the analogy of comparing sperm to seeds as a way to examine the ethics of abortion and a pregnant woman's responsibility to the fetus inside her. The seeds in Thomson's analogy have the ability to grow and become human plants if they germinate in carpets or upholstery (a woman's reproductive organs). Since a woman cannot consent to the act of rape, she cannot take responsibility for becoming pregnant. Surely the woman cannot be responsible just because she has the ability to get pregnant. The fetus has no eminent right over the woman's body at the time of contraception, even if it is a person. He has no moral ties to a fetus conceived by rape. She had no intention of having sexual intercourse that could lead to pregnancy. Thomson states that an unborn person has a right to her mother's body only if her pregnancy is the result of a voluntary act (216). One can relate this to the person-seed analogy, although it is not directed by Thomson, saying that rape is akin to forcing open a window when the woman wants her house to remain quarantined from the possibility of a seed floating in it in. Thomson recognizes the absurdity of the argument of the fetus's implied right to use its mother's body by stating that a woman is not expected to undergo a hysterectomy or have an army to protect herself from rape to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, a fetus conceived as a result of non-consensual intercourse has no right to exist in its mother's body. This strengthens his argument that not all unborn children have the right to live in their mother's home