The woman in fact pattern one
The store owner in fact pattern two
They both have the right to kill
Neither has the right to kill
The road to Hell and the road to Jahannam is the same damn road.
I became a conservative by being around liberals. I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. ~ Greg Gutfeld.
If you believe in property rights, than the owner has the right to use lethal force the minute the thief stepped onto his property and demonstrated criminal intent. Detaining them, scaring them off, or all these other things are only effective if there is a real threat of lethal force behind them.
Some people have suggested that you have no right to kill someone over property. Let's imagine this was the law of the land. You can never use lethal force to defend your property. A thief breaks into your house. You confront him with a gun and demand that he stop. If you cannot actually use the gun in defense of your property, it's useless. If the thief knows that you cannot shoot him for "mere" theft or you will be accused of murder, why should he obey your command? He could just simply turn his back to you and continue robbing you. If you shoot him, you're going down for murder. So you're forced to just stand there and watch this guy rob you blind while you hold what has become a useless hunk of metal since you cannot use it defend your property.
Now I know this scenario isn't very realistic. Most thieves wouldn't chance it, but according to some folks if I ordered a thief to stop and he didn't and just continued robbing me, I'd still be wrong to shoot him because it was "only" about property. They make silly claims that no piece of property is worth taking a life over. I disagree 100%. My property is easily more valuable to me than the life of some scumbag thief.
As for defending yourself against attack, I ask again, why do I have to expose myself to risk and wait for him to make his intentions to cause me bodily harm known? He's already shown a complete disregard for the law and the rights of others. That alone is enough to label him a potential threat and thus be dealt with under the banner of self defense. Giving him a chance to react by saying "Freeze" or whatever, just puts me at risk.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.
The former clearly has the greater right to kill, being subject to violation of her body, but I'd argue that they are both entirely within their rights to kill. In the latter case, the dealership owner has no way of knowing the intruder's intentions, mental state, or whether or not he is armed. When dealing with unknown persons, one should always assume that they are armed and make no assumptions about their intentions.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
In my mind, both are legitimate scenarios, although I won't argue that the first is "killing" unless you buy into that "life begins at conception" crap.
At two weeks...well, first of all let's get rid of the emotional plea and not call it a fetus. Biology has indisputable evidence that it is not a fetus. If you abort, you're doing nothing more dangerous than washing dead skin cells off your body in the shower, or picking at a scab.
As far as the case we've been discussing, the right to someone's property, and own personal safety, should be tantamount, barring extreme circumstances. The fact that this situation had so many variables means that the only constant toward the owner's safety would be subject neutralization. Now if this is hurt, unconscious, or dead, I don't give a damn. When someone breaks into your property with intent for malice and harm - weapon status immaterial - you should be granted the ability to defend your life, liberty, and property.
And as far as I'm concerned, once you violate another's rights, especially maliciously, your rights immediately become compromised.
This is a brilliant example of the demonisation of all and any women seeking abortion
What on this earth or the next does the woman's sexual experience, proclivity or orientation have to do with the case??
I guess any woman wanting an abortion just has to fit into one and only one category
Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose.
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much...