A difficult situation, Kay, but hopefully your caring nature is a comfort to your brother. Probably no good trying to reason with your niece. In my opinion the most important thing is to minimise the harmful effects of becoming pregnant and/or getting a STD.

The sooner she is on the pill the better and she needs to understand that the pill does nothing to protect her from possible infections, so the boy needs to use a condom as well. This in no way "encourages" anything, it merely accepts the way things currently are.

She may be mature enough to understand that sex [at any age] is much more satisfactory with a person who is caring enough to want it to be good [and safe] for her too. And much better also if that person likes her for herself and doesn't just see her as a convenient means to satisfy himself.

Yabby
In regards to your comments about my giving, I give 10% of my income (similar to how people of the christian religion tithe) + $50 to overseas aid agencies. As a student its a substantial amount of my income. I also volunteer regularly for an organisation called Awareness Cambodia that takes in orphaned children who have AIDS, or whose parents have died of AIDS (http://www.awarecam.org.au if anyone else wants to get involved, it is highly rewarding).
As for your Vatican comments, I know I got my 10% principle from the christian faith, and they give alot more money, time, and effort to helping under-privilidged children than any group I know.
I'm choosing not to be offended by your comments of calling me a hippocrite, but at least ask some questions before you start throwing labels around :P.

Anyway back to the actual discussion. I don't think you addressed what I said, rather than restated your position? Let me elaborate.

"If you understand a little about biology, you will understand that without biodiversity there is no humanity."
This statement is really totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm assuming that the point you're trying to make here is that you don't consider embryo's as human beings, but you made no proof backing this statement. However I read two points of arguement elsewhere you made:

- "No functioning brain etc."
1. I'd ask you what your definition of a brain is, and how much development is required to achieve it.The neural system begins developing around "1-2 weeks", and doesn't finish its development until the child reaches its early 20's!
2. What is your definition of function? Even by birth, the brain is only carrying out basic sensorimotor functions until 1 1/2 years of age! This doesn't justify infanticide.
3. How is this a valid definition of what a human is?

- "Nature aborts them on a regular basis"
Yes, people die all the time too. Is it now acceptable to kill your neighbour because you don't like them or they're inconviniencing you? Because their life is really "just 1 more"?

Next sentence.

"Ecosystems need to be sustainable, wall to wall humans is not sustainable. We need to live on this planet sustainably, or there won't be a humanity to be concerned about. Its as simple as that. 80 million per year increase in the human population is not sustainable either."
Who are we to determine that lifes are taken so can lower the world population. Oh how truly noble. In ridiculing my original argument, you missed what I was saying. We could take this argument and apply it to whole groups of people who are 20+ yrs old. This is because the underlying assumption if this comment is that all we really are is just molecules of DNA etc., and that individual human lifes aren't important, rather just the survival of the species. I personally believe in the sanctity of basic human rights for every human life, and that everyone deserves a fair go.

In other words, we need to figure out other ways to solve the population crisis. Speaking of which, Australia is not experiencing a population crisis. You'll see that the problems are mainly found in the developing world, hence this introduction of the "baby bonus" as an incentive for Australian's to breed!

TO ALL
I appreciate this is an emotional subject of issue. This is because it really cuts to the core of our humanity, what rights an individual has. Therefore I think there will never be an emotion-free abortion debate, purely because of the highly emotive content of the subject. However I agree with Rex and co. that we should try to refrain from personal attacks and debate points so we can come to an understanding of where each of us are coming from.

Friedrich no I don't read Getrude Stein.

Justin you raise many points, which I can't answer in 350 words. So I'll reply to the rest when I am allowed another post.

The so called sanctity of human life has been a great concept to try to prevent humans from killing one another, as they have in intertribal warfare since time immermorial. It sounds impressive when people repeat it, so I check to see how seriously they take it.
Usually people make it, as long as its not at their own cost, but at the cost of others.

Don't take this personally Justin, its the point that I am making that matters. It is laudable of you to do lots for charity etc.
The point remains, you have a choice of saving say another three babies in Africa by selling your computer, or keeping it and arguing on OLO. You clearly choose to keep your computer over the three babies. Similarly the Vatican prefers to keep its billions, rather then save starving babies. Thats the reality of it, which cannot be denied. Thats why my point that alot of claims about the sanctity of human life are rhetoric, for people put their own self interest before anything else, no matter what they claim.

A being can be an organism, that does not make it a person. If say an ovum met up with a sperm down in a sewer where most are flushed, would it be murder if it died? That would be ridiculous.

A fetus does not have a brain, and its brains which makes us people.
Brain cells begin to develop and multiply, but only in week 20 does the brain organise itself into various systems. Only in the 6th month are nearly all the neurones needed for life present.

Professor Yabby,

Why are you debating? To change someones mind. Surely not.

I repeat, keep sordid behaviour in the dark corners it belongs in.

Abortion pride. The latest craze.

I don't believe in the religious dogma about the holy sperm and ovum, considering that most are simply flushed down toilets. I do believe that we have a responsibility for future generations, to live sustainably. That does not mean killing people, it means giving all women the right to family planning worldwide, despite the religious dogma from Rome.

Yes ecosystems eventually collapse if they are overtaxed. Here is a bit about it http://dieoff.org/page14.htm

Already Indonesia is telling us we should share our fish with them, as too many people have overtaxed theirs to make it collapse. So do we give them all our fish and ruin ours? Population is a global issue. If we wished, we could double Australia's population to 40 million tomorrow, thats only 3 months worth of human population increase.

At the end of the day, I have shown that both you and the Vatican act out of your own self interest and wellbeing, despite your claims of sanctity of the holy embryo. I think that women should have the same right as you claim for yourself, the right to make choices about their lives. Religious dogma remains religious dogma, irrelevant to most of us. The future of the planet is far more important, as its the only one we have right now