Should the law permit the removal but not the killing of a viable fetus from a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy?

I agree that the woman has a right to have the fetus removed from her body: she's not obligated to serve involuntarily as its host. But could it be argued that the "baby" has the right to be removed in a way that doesn't result in its death? Perhaps it could be delivered prematurely or removed via c-section, nurtured in a hospital, and adopted by a willing family -- with all of the costs paid for by this family. By Judith Thomson's violinist analogy, I would seem to have a right to remove the violinist -- or transfer him to a willing host -- but not to kill him. Given that, shouldn't we do the same for the viable fetus?