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
It's either life or it's not life. If it's not life, it doesn't matter because it's not killing. If it's life, then property rights issues don't justify the obvious over use of force against the obviously helpless.
Children, after birth, are much more inconvenient, expensive, and destructive to personal property than children, before birth. But, few tolerate parents killing their children after they're born. They tolerate it before they are born because general society has deemed (consciously or unconsciously) that it is not life. The portion of society that deems it life, for the most part, realize that "anti-social" behavior will not provide acceptable results.
The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.
They both have the Right to Kill.
IF the first scenario were the result of a drunken night with her boyfriend where she consented to the sexual act, then she would not have the Right to Kill in my mind, but since she was not consented about the act that created the pregnancy, she does have the Right to Kill so far as I am concerned.
I've already commented in another thread that I have absolutely no issue with how the gentlemen protected the used car lot.
I support the woman having a right to an abortion.
I don't support killing someone in defense of property only.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Since we're dealing with a theoretical situation only, I will address this in a philosophical way. If it were happening in front of my face, my reaction could be completely different.
People need to be careful when they talk about the "right to kill". No such right exists, not even in natural law. Rights are assigned to intellectual and social forces only, and they tend to deal with collective relationships, i.e. a bunch of humans living together.
I've heard people talk about "natural rights" when it comes to killing, such as when protecting a child. The only natural right that really exists is: do what you want - you really do have complete freedom. There is no one around to enforce your "right" to kill, other than yourself. If you live in a tribe, then there are other social forces at work, but ultimately this is about your own relationship to the concept.
If you want to kill someone for any reason, no justification is necessary. Yes, you will likely deal with consequences if you live in a tribe, but the notion that it's sacrosanct is self-created. Humans kill all the time and for arbitrary reasons. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's the truth.
When placed in a survival situation, all this sophistry disappears. Instinct is pure action, and the actions don't usually respond to the concept of rights. Violence and killing are the most unconscious of all acts. They just happen. If someone is defending their child to the death, they are not thinking about rights. They want to protect their kid and they will kill anyone who defies that.
So... to summarize all this neatly... no one has the right to kill. They just kill.
The store owner has the right to rape the burglar.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius