The first step is to make an effort to understand what you are reading instead of inventing completely different meanings and steadfastly adhering to theses inventions.
If you put no effort into understanding, you will never achieve understanding.It makes as much sense.
Yes, they have that right. And they can exercise said right by moving to a region where these people aren't present. It's not like every neighborhood has a mandatory Muslim or Jew or guy reading certain books.Do people have a right to freedom of religion, but also a right to live where there are no Muslims or Jews too? Or freedom of the press, but also a right to live in a place where they don't have to see other people reading stuff they don't like?
If someone they don't like moves next door, they merely have to move again to exercise their right.
Are you in favor of banning people's right to move into the neighborhood of their choosing? Do you not believe it is the right of a person to move to a place of their choosing?
It's about choice. It is impossible to prevent a woman from exercising her right to abort her child. She will always be free to use a coat hanger in her own home. That's why abortion is a right.Hmmm. How exactly does one have a right to something and also a right to live where nobody can get it at the same time?
If it could not be self-administered (and I don't give a rat's ass about safety, there is no right to have an abortion safely) it would not be a right.
What isn't a right is legal access to a service-provider for abortions.
This is why your argument is a strawman. You mistakenly believe that my statement that a woman has the right to an abortion extends beyond the simple right to abort the fetus and into the right to have a service provided at cost.
Not all rights are freely exercised.