Abortion is morally wrong

[Dystopia]

Again completely wrong. I'm not talking about religious reasons only, but also morals and ethics. Let's put it simply and I won't repeat this, refusing anything that endangers life is not allowed, refusing an abortion doesn't kill the woman. The case you mentioned doesn't apply where I live, since clinics are in the same city.

You allow refusal if there is an alternative. In the case of abortion, there are clinics for it. If you refuse something that is the only mean of saving a life, then it's not legal.

And the case of premarital sex is different, a doctor has nothing to do with personal decisions regarding sexual behavior, the case of abortion is a doctor believing they are killing someone. Seriously why is this so hard to understand? We shouldn't force people to go against their convictions so strongly, sounds like a dictatorship that violates freedom of conscience and religion/morals/ethics

What you're talking about is completely irrelevant. This is the way laws work, you have to be super careful how you word laws and you have to define all words whose definitions could be subjective. Then you have to remember that every time you rule a certain way you create precedent which can later be used as reasoning for future rulings. Some people may find interfering with god's will for someone to die just as morally objectionable as murder. Just because you don't doesn't mean the slippery slope is not created.

We are talking about a conflict of rights. Putting it simple, the most important right prevails. This is not based on the slippery rope argument, the right that will prevail in the conflict will be chosen according to each concrete case and not in abstract. I'll give you basic examples, the objective is to find an equilibrium between objections and patients' rights:

1 - Should a JW be able to refuse giving a blood transfusion? No. What if there is an alternative method to blood transfusion that works equally well? Yes, the JW can refuse and use the alternative method
2 - Should a doctor refuse to treat someone who's life is eminently in danger because it goes against his/hers religion? No, obviously

As you can see from 1 or 2, the right to live surpasses the right to religious beliefs (religious, moral or ethical, it doesn't matter)

3 - Should a doctor refuse abortion if there is no other option or professional to perform it and the woman needs it right away? Not sure about it, but my answer would be no. What if there are professionals specially designated for it? Then yes.

4 - Should I be able to refuse to go to war because my ethics or religion is against it? Yes clearly (same for military service with guns, etc)
5 - Should I be able to refuse marrying 2 gay people if I'm against gay marriage? I'm not sure about it
6 - Should an individual refuse to sell contraceptives because it is against his religion? In this case it seems to me the answer is no

This are examples I quoted from my fundamental rights professors' book, I translated them to english.

We do not want extreme measures, I don't think all objections are valid, but I don't think either all should be invalid, the slippery slope argument doesn't apply because each case is an individual reality with no relation with other realities. Objection is allowed if there is no significant harm to the patient and an alternative method exists. In the cases I supported objection, there were always alternative methods with the same results.