Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read the article but I think the outrage is misplaced. There are people forced to wear a Islamic head dress. The solution is not to ban Islamic head dress. There are people forced into sex slavery and prostitution. The solution isn't to ban prostitution. There are people who are forced into an abortion. The solution is not to ban abortion. The solution to abuse cannot be curtailing of rights.
First of all, at least you are honest about commenting on something for which you have no basis to be commenting on, having not read the article. Second, the appropriate response may not be to ban all of those things outright, but comprehensive regulation is certainly within the best interests of society. Finally, the casual assertion of abortion as a right is noted and summarily rejected. I won’t engage further thou…
I just want to note that there are two types of "rights." There's positive and negative rights.
Negative rights are the typical libertarian types of issues, namely that things cannot be taken away from you or rather that you do not have s specific duty. These are things like freedom of speech (no duty to regulate your speech), freedom of religion (no duty to have a specific religion), fair trial, life, the right to not be enslaved by another, etc. tldr: you have no duty to act (or not act) in a certain manner.
Positive rights are typically left leaning and are entitlements. As an example, you have the right (you are entitled) to an attorney. Others include public education, national security, and a minimum wage. People are advocating for other things like the right to clean water, fair housing, higher education, health care, internet access, etc. tldr: you do have a duty to act (or not act) in a certain manner (often in the form of taxes).
I bring this up because people often talk past one another because they just say "rights" and are using different definition. So I believe this causes a lot of fighting rather than productive conversation as people just embed the idea that "rights are rights." It is also a good example of where communication breaks down because what is obvious to one party is not obvious to another party and they are operating in completely different frameworks, refusing to recognize that the other party is operating in said framework.
As for abortion (maybe I'm maybe sidetracking) it is often considered a negative right because one (the state) needs to take action to stop a specific action (abortion). Though it can also be framed as a positive right if either 1) the fetus is viewed as a human, and thus they are being deprived of their rights to life through the action of another or 2) one is forcing physicians to perform abortions.