First if all, if a helpless little baby were placed on your property against your wishes, you would not have a legal or moral right to crush, decapitate, poison, or dismember that child.
You could call Child Protective Services or 911 and ask public authorities to take this child alive and safe off of your property as soon as it can be done without risk to the child. Bashing the kid with a shovel would be a criminal act.
Trespassing is not a capital crime. Moreover, the child, passive and helpless, was placed there. He did not intentionally or recklessly PUT himself there. He did not aggress.
So killing s child is still murder, even if the child was begotten by rape.
If intercourse was consensual, an additional argument of an “obligation to care” can be made, since all persons of reproductive age realize that intercourse can lead to pregnancy. This calls for strict liability.
Do you accept that there exists such a thing as parental obligation?
I partially agree with you. The right to evict is not the right to kill. However, using the right to evict does not create an obligation to provide alternative housing. Nor does it obligate anyone else to do so. So I would posit that those who abort should do so in such a way that others who would be willing to provide alternative support structures would be able to do so.