It really is a bit more complicated than that. No one would recognise an absolute and unfettered right of individual choice in all matters. The limiting factor would be whether the individual's choice impinges on another.

In relation to abortion the disagreement is based on a different interpretation of whether this applies in this situation, with the two sides having "a more restricted definition of, respectively, valid life and valid choice".

Both sides can reasonably claim that they are in favour both of a right to life and a right to choose - just not of an absolute right in either case.

Moreover there is an ambiguity in the term "right to choose" as generally used. It is not always clear whether people use it in a purely legal sense, or in a moral sense. It is in principle possible to regard abortion as something which is wrong in all circumstances, and yet to believe that, on balance, it may be futile and damaging to seek to prohibit it by law - and a diversion from more effective ways of damage limitation.