Final answer:
It is false that Thomson's pro-life argument concerning abortion advocates for the moral impermissibility of euthanasia. Thomson discusses a fetus's right to life in the context of abortion, while euthanasia involves separate issues of suffering and patient autonomy.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the statement 'Thomson's pro-life argument concerning abortion points toward the moral impermissibility of euthanasia', it is false. Judith Jarvis Thomson, in her well-known work 'A Defense of Abortion', argues that the fetus's right to life does not override the mother's right to make decisions about her own body.
This thought experiment with the famous violinist underscores her view that having a right to life does not entail the right to use someone else's body for life support against their will. While Thomson's argument is centered around abortion, it doesn't specifically address the permissibility of euthanasia, which involves different ethical considerations such as the alleviation of suffering and respecting the patient's autonomy at the end of life.
Several philosophers have discussed euthanasia on different grounds. For instance, Peter Singer supports euthanasia from a utilitarian viewpoint, focusing on the quality of life and the relief from unnecessary suffering, whereas others worry about the ethical implications such as the sanctity of human life and a potential slippery slope if euthanasia were widely practiced.