Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?