Hang on, don't conflate my argument with personal experience. I have a child and have never had one aborted.

Ad hominem attacks only serve to undermine your argument, which you have yet to present in a coherent form.

Is the hypothetical situation I presented to you ethical, yes or no?

"Can you grasp what the Left has done? If it is not life threatening, late term viable babies deserve the right to life no matter what inhuman selfish fools think."

Not at the expense of another persons wellbeing or rights. I've already explained that wellbeing covers much more than just life or death. Think carefully on the analogy I gave and ask yourself if you think it was ethical or not.

Yes, you've missed off a section of the point I've made and are now attacking a strawman.

Nobody has a right to life at the expense of someone else's, or to put it simply somebody else's rights or wellbeing.

Wellbeing covers a wide array of things for both mother and child. It does include but is not limited to life and death.

I have a right to life, does that mean that if i needed a new kidney and there wasn't a donor available that the state should legislate that somebody is forced to give me one?

It won't kill them, they may have to change their lifestyle a bit, but that's just an issue of convenience.

Also I'm from the UK. We established the rules on abortions years ago and moved on to bigger issues. It's not even on the political agenda anymore.

You conflate the right to life with right to life at someone else's expense.

That's the distinction when it comes to abortion. We all, and I include unborn children, have a right to life. None of us have the right to life at the expense of somebody else's and I don't see any reason to afford special rights to foetuses.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the premise of this debate. Who is it denying the existence of the bible? There is almost certainly people who are unaware the bible exists but that isn't denial, it's ignorance.