/sci/ - Science & Math

Induce a miscarraige? Why? I'm guessing you or someone you know is too far along in pregnancy to get a professional abortion, but have decided this late in development not to have the child. Well, you're a bad person and you should feel bad. Don't get me wrong, I am totally pro-choice, but within reason. There are certain thresholds in development that exist, kind of like a "no turning back" point, well, at least that the government puts in place.

My background: I'm a developmental psychobiologist, specifically I study prenatal and early post-natal development, albeit I conduct research on avian species. As far as human prenatal development, I know some stuff, but I'm no OBGYN.

My advise: Developing embryos and fetuses can be pretty tough, I doubt any of the substances would cause it to completely stop development. Lots of products get banned because of the risk of miscarriage. Other substances, like tobacco and alcohol have warning labels because of the risk, but heavy smokers and drinkers still pop out babies. Development can get all kinds of fucked up but it would take a lot to take a healthy fetus in an otherwise healthy uterus to miscarry. Even if the substances you mentioned could affect the fetus, you would probably have to ingest an amount so great you would put yourself in danger.

If you are still in the "window" to get a professional abortion, go for it. Go to a reputable clinic, someplace clean and efficient. Don't try to miscarry at home. I don't really care about the fetus - they're not really people at this point - but there could be a lot of negative effects on the woman, including compromised uterine health, a bunch of hormonal stuff, and difficulty having children later, when desirable. Birth the child, and if you cannot care for it, give it up for adoption. Lots of places like police stations and fire houses will accept anonymously abandoned newborns.

edit *any of the substances you listed

the girl for whom i'm making this thread is actually well within the window for a professional abortion, but due to typical teenage bullshit/state law restrictions, a professional abortion really isn't an option, and neither is carrying it to term.

>>3149484
Carrot soup will surely make your fetus a deformed one, but I'm not sure if it's abortive.

>>3149670
5 bucks says you were having sex with a minor and you fucked up. Good job, moron.

i'm her older sister, moron

The bible clearly says abortions are wrong. Your sister is a whore.

>>3149709
No, it doesn't.

coat hanger?

>>3149670
See if you can go out-of-state. You're probably in a red state, but even there you can find support networks that will help you get out of state for the procedure. I don't know what kind of teenage drama is going on, but that can be worked on. If it's an issue of getting parental consent (required by law) there are probably ways around that, too.

Unfortunately, with abortion being de facto criminalized in some areas, the rise of "black market" abortion providers has risen. There's still people around from when abortion was fully illegal, and they got good as they could in doing abortions outside of a clinic. I can't say I'd advise it, but it may be an option. If nothing else, they may be able to direct you in the right direction.

BUT BE AWARE OF SO-CALLED "PREGNANCY CRISIS" CENTERS. They are pro-life groups masquerading as clinics to shame women into carrying to term.

Get off 4chan and do some real research. Get off your ass and don't just go look online. Find your nearest center and go there yourself. They can probably help you find a solution. Just get out there and see what you can find. If any of my female friends needed an abortion, I would drive them out of state (actually, I'm in a safe state) and pay for their abortion, no questions asked, nothing expected in return. You hopefully will find people who can help you out.

http://angryforareason.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-induce-miscarriage-herbally-and.html

THANK ME LATER

>>3149701
>>3149701
A woman? On my /sci/? Ridiculous.

>>3149709
captcha: Lord, tiolude

AND it's fun for you.

>>3149715
"Thou shalt not kill."
Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

"Can a woman forget her sucking child,
that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?
yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands;
thy walls are continually before me."
Isaiah 49:15-16 (KJV)

try >>>/fit/
good luck

>>3149752

killing was fine when it was the Israelites were hacking down the canaanites .

back to the point. PLANNED PARENTHOOD. go out of state if you have to. herbs or soup or whatever is probably not going to work. do your parents really suck so bad that you couldn't tell them?

>>3149752
All that shows is that you ought not take the life of a human. It also shows that moral rights begin sometime in the womb. It does not show that moral rights begin at conception.

>>3149789
>moral rights begin sometime in the womb
>does not show that moral rights begin at conception
>mfw conception date has already passed and development is obviously occurring

>>3149798
>mfw conception date has already passed and development is obviously occurring
Yes, and? The bible doesn't say once development starts, then it has moral rights. That's an invention entirely separate from scripture.

>>3149789

Everything after conception is arbitrary. Conception is the creation of a new human. It is then or never.

>>3149824
And that does not appear anywhere in the goddamned bible.

>>3149723

> ireland has banned abortion
> even illegal to go elsewhere for abortions
> black market for abortion is nonexistent

Well shit, there goes your claims.

>>3149826

I am speaking of logics.

-Mothers should be able to claim a dependent at the moment of conception
-We should issue social security cards to unborn babies
-All crimes against a pregnant woman should count as a crime against an minor as well
-All babies should have their own lawyers should they have to appear in court
-We can't incarcerate a pregnant woman unless the baby is tried and convicted as well. This is because jailing the mother would be a violation of the baby's civil rights.
-Pregnant women should count as one and 3/5ths of a person during elections and the census

>>3149843

.1/10

Law and logics are rarely in the same boat.

>>3149834
>name is liberty
>claims to understand logic
>mfw

>>3149850

> implying liberty is illogical

>>3149752
oh, so abortion is murder if its a boy?

>>3149858
He and she are interchangeable in modern interpretations.

>>3149858

Abortions is murder if the woman originally consented to the creation of the separate human.

>>3149834
Your logic is "If there is a bright line, then the law should be that". That is obviously a bullshit argument. Apply it anywhere else and you will see the fallacies.

>>3149846

Is it not logical to afford a person rights? If a baby is a person, and a person has rights then it's perfectly logical to say that the baby has rights. All I was point out is a few of the rights unborn babies should have since they are human beings.

If you feel some human beings don't deserve rights then I would say you're a poor humanist and you have no place to make a judgement on that which is moral. Let alone partake in a discussion as complex and with many subtleties as this one.

>>3149864
is "he" also interchangeable with "it"

as in referencing a fetus that has not yet developed into a boy, girl or otherwise human?

>>3149752
You're a murderer. You kill hundreds of thousands of bacteria every day, bacteria in your mouth, bacteria in your bowels, bacteria on your skin. You kill ants and bugs and spiders, you might even kill wildlife. How does a small mass of flesh differ?

>>3149870
consented with who?

>>3149870
consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to the creation of a human.
in the same way that choosing to drive your car is not choosing to rear-end some one.

accidents happen.

the fetus can not survive on its own without the body of the mother, it is not its own entity. it is a parasite that she can choose to keep or not.

Ugg, to head off any problems, here it comes.

Secular Humanist abortion copypasta part 1 of 2

In a rational world view, a single celled organism does not have rights, morally speaking, no matter its location or DNA. A bacteria making you sick has no rights. A fertilized human egg has no rights.

Argument: "It has human DNA so it has rights!"
Refutation: Cut off someone's hand. The hand does have human DNA. Does the hand have rights? Hell no it doesn't.

Argument: "A human hand doesn't have the potential to become human. A fertilized egg does."
Refutation: So do sperm and unfertilized eggs, under the proper conditions, just like a fertilized egg.

Argument: "My holy book / paster says that the human soul enters the body at fertilization."
Refutation: First, it's faith and religion, which makes it stupid. Not much more needs to be said without going into an atheist vs theist thread derailment. Second, your holy book does not say that. It's an invention of the religious people wholly apart from Christian scripture, Islam scripture, and Jeudism scripture. Those ignorant fuckers who wrote those holy books didn't didn't even know what a sperm was.

Second, that's still asinine. Consider the case of identical twins. What happens is that the fertilized egg splits /after/ being fertilized. The two cells after the split go on to become two indendepent human beings. Thus the soul does not always enter the body at fertilization. Let's not even start talking about chimeras.

>>3149894
Secular Humanist abortion copypasta part 2 of 2

So, where does that leave us? Secular humanism for starters. We need to identify where human life begins such that the thing deserves human rights. We face a similar probem at the other end - death. Usually death is identified with brain death. Some might argue heart not working any more, but with modern science we can keep someone alive and speaking hours after their heart stops, and I think that most people would consider the person alive, so again it's brain death. Consequently, brain "birth" seems like a good place to start giving things moral and legal rights.

So, the daily pill and the day after pill are perfectly moral and ought to be perfectly legal - the brain isn't there yet. At some point, we need to draw an arbitrary line, preferable erring on the side of caution just like we do when we declare someone dead.

Before the brain is "born" - no rights. However, once they become aware, then things start getting tricky. This is where Roe V Wade comes in. Let's suppose a mother is pregnant, and that the baby is aware and has moral rights. To outlaw an abortion is to use force by the state to conscript the mother's body to take care of another individual of society. It's almost indistinguishable from forcing people to donate kidneys to strangers. That violates our sense of right and wrong.

A good counter-argument is that having sex carries the risk of pregnancy, and thus carries consent to carry the baby to term.

A great counter-argument is that after 3 months, a woman knows if she's pregnant or not, and ought to have made the decision to abort or not, as the longer she waits the more she risks killing an aware human being. Thus if babies are aware at 3 months or later, abortions ought to be illegal after 3 months.

For the inbetween time of conception to 3 months, if the baby is indeed aware, then I am undecided.

>>3149883
This is a human because it has all the genetic material a human has. Just because it is in a different state and isn't necessarily identifiable as you or me immediately doesn't mean it still isn't human.

>>3149880
The bible is anthropocentric. Why would you expect its teachings to apply towards non-human or non-spiritual beings?

Until the baby is born and the umbillical severed, it is nothing more than a cancer or parasite. It is a living entity supported wholly by another living being. As such, it has no rights. If a woman is two days from delivery and wants an abortion, that's her right. It's her body, it's her choice.

>>3149892
>consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to the creation of a human.
Maybe if you're completely ignorant of biology.
>the fetus can not survive on its own without the body of the mother,
Neither can a 1-year-old. Completely irrelevant to anything.
>it is not its own entity.
bullshit self-delusion
>it is a parasite that she can choose to keep or not.
bullshit self-delusion

Tell her to put it up for adoption (if she is white or asian). Rich upper middle class couples pay 35k usd to adopt non-healthy meth babies and 75k usd+ for healthy ones as long as they're white. The child will lead a great life.

Not meaning to be racist, but this is just how it is. Poor black children who are put up for adoption live in foster homes all their life.

>>3150013
Also, tell her to take birth control next time.

>>3149972
>>the fetus can not survive on its own without the body of the mother,
>Neither can a 1-year-old. Completely irrelevant to anything.
No, a one-year old can survive without the body of its biological mother. A fetus can not.

>>it is not its own entity.
>bullshit self-delusion
right back at you buddy.

>>it is a parasite that she can choose to keep or not.
>bullshit self-delusion

if you're so damn concerned for the fetus, you take it. oh wait, you can't, so it isn't your choice to make.

>>3149972
I normally wouldn't deign a response here since you're just trolling, but for people who may actually need to know this stuff:

Procreation and sexual intercourse are related, not the same thing. Equating the two would be like equating eating and shitting. Yes, they're very related, one leads to the other, but they're not the same. You have control over when and what you eat, and you only lose control of when and where you shit if you are very ill.

A one-year-old is fully capable of surviving if supported by another adult. A month-old pregnancy is indivisibly reliant on the mother. After birth, the mother can die while the child lives. A fetus dies if the mother dies.

A fetus simply is not an individual. It may be human, but it is not *a* human. It is not an individual being. It cannot be separated from its host and expected to survive on its own. Even if granted its own thoughts and movements (which even newborns don't really have yet for several months) it does not exist as anything other than a growth in the mother's womb. There is no clear physical separation between mother and fetus until the fetus is born and becomes a baby.

A fetus shares by far more in common with a parasite than a baby. A baby eats, breathes, shits, and moves independently of the mother. A fetus, like a parasite, lives only in biological cooperation (imposed or willing) with the mother. A fetus basically IS a parasite. As with any other unwanted growth, like cancer, the human being has an immaculate right to make a decision to have it removed.

>>3150037
An abandoned 1-y-o will die. He cannot feed himself.

>>3150085
> A fetus dies if the mother dies.
So the fuck what? So that justifies killing it if the mother is still alive? Great logic. A parent can't kill or abandon its 1-y-o. Why should it be allowed to kill its pre-born child?

>A fetus simply is not an individual. It may be human, but it is not *a* human. It is not an individual being.
WTF? Are you high? It's a human organism. It's a person. If I put you in the jungle without the rest of human society, you would die too. You can't survive on your own (unless you're bear fucking grills). Does that mean you aren't a human, and you're fair game for killing? You can't possibly believe this shit.

A parasite by definition is not the same species as the host. Offspring are not parasites. I'm pretty sure you're an unwanted growth too. That doesn't mean it's necessarily okay to kill you.

>unsure if this is the appropriate board for this
/sci/ is always the perfect board for trolling

>>3150090

I guess that's why orphanages are full of starving children.

>>3149670

Call a Planned Parenthood in a state that allows abortion without a parent signature. Schedule the appointment and then drive there. Yeah, it might take a while to drive and yeah, it's an investment, but it's way better then paying for a kid and ruining a young girls life.

>>3149484
Planned Parenthood called, they want their aborted fetuses back.

>>3150117

Not all abandoned kids are thrown into orphanages, Some just get left in warehouses and streets.

>>3150099

being *a* human doesn't require being part of society.

Wouldnt aborting them and sending then directly to heaven be a million times more moral, in every way, then dumping the kid to fend for it self on the street, to suffer for its entire and likely short life? I mean, its a 100% guarantee front row seat in heaven without even a RISK of hell? (since babies can sin) You can make the argument that your saving them from a chance at hell.

Isnt that exactly what Christians want?

>A fetus dies if the mother dies.

Be careful here. If you are referring to a fetus in the early stages of development, then yes, you are absolutely correct.

However if the fetus is far enough developed (let's say, 8 months) then it is viable even if its mother dies. Of course, if it remains stuck inside the dead mother, it too will die. If you take it out in time, it will survive.

This is not a clear cut black and white issue, hence the debate.

why don't you just push her down some stairs

and by that i mean punch her in the stomach

Your sister is a dumb irresponsible harlot. GG parents.

>>3150147

Original sin, whoops.

1. Mother and fetus are one: Suicide is a sin, fetus goes to hell.

2. Mother and fetus are separate: Fetus never devoted its life to God, goes to hell.

(Can you imagine this shit? Why did God even make the fetus in the first place?)

>>3150162
Wait, so then god make the fetus even KNOWING it would burn in hell for eternity? (omniscient)

I'll Never understand how people buy into that shit.

why not just take plan B pill?

or like 5 normal birth control pills at once, that works too.

There are readily available approved methods for preventing pregnancy within 96 hours of unprotected sex.

Of course, you are a soulless baby killer for even considering any of this, enjoy Hell, murderfag!

>>3150099
> So that justifies killing it if the mother is still alive?

Yes, the needs of the actualized human being, the individual whose body is used by the fetus, come before the needs of some potential life which does not yet exist. It is no different from a cancer. It is as human as a cancer is, and should be treated as such.

Your troll-fu is weak. I was hoping for at least some moderate intellectual exercise. Instead I got beer cans to knock over.

>>3149871

Law has nothing to do with logics, and I do not support state regulations in anyway ever.

>>3149876

Correct, as rights do not exist.

>>3149884

The new human.

>>3149892

Yes it is. Unless of course pregnancy is an unknown consequence of sex. Driving like a woman has bad consequences. You do not get to kill to get yourself out of them.

>>3149894

Two cells forming to making one human being. A human hand will NEVER be an alive human being. A sperm can NEVER be an alive human being. An egg can NEVER be an alive human being. Human life begins when a new human is created. Simple. Elegant. Logical.

This debate is quite interesting, but to thsoe that keep defending the fetus:

Of course all life is "amazing/awesome" but that doesn't mean destroying it should be outlawed. There should be something like a "life protection codex", that would seems rational and logical:

A mosquito: Has no conciousness, class V of life, simple small.

A fetus:
Class V of life, no conciousness, is little. (bonus value: future vessel of a human(disregarded as fetuses are easy to obtain, any female of the human race is their making factory)).

When to kill each:

1. A mosquito is suspected to carry a disease or is aiming to bite/has already bitten you. Reason for destruction: interference with the biological functions of the human organism.

2. A fetus has appeared in an individual that was not yet ready to have one. Or there are some complications that threaten the carrier of the fetus. Reason for destruction: threatens the life of the carrier directly thought copmplications or trough making her suffer trough troublesome social consequences.

ANYWAYS>>
this thread was originally about how you should get rid of that little fuked cell cluster. Try some esoteric videos, there are some of them about miscarriage, it's not actually magic, all pleacebo, but actually works, theres this russian "mage" that did some creepy shit, projected bad thoughts and stuff, dont remember his name, anyways, my cousin got a miscarriage because she got so fucking scared and she believed not only her fetus, but she herself would die. Pros: no drugs poisoning the body. Cons: possible mental scarring

>>3151819

I support no state regulation.

Any person can engage in any activity that threatens their body. It is called consent.

no problem

>>3151825

So, no state regulation at all, huh?

"Great. Privatize your fire department. 'I'm sorry, your insurance expired in March. So we're just going to hose down the buildings next to yours and leave yours to burn.

Now that's a fine arson!'"

>>3151888

Private fire departments exist now. Services and products have costs, thinking you should get them for free makes you silly.

>>3151888
Private fire departments actually worked pretty well in practice.

Sure, some of them evolved into, "If you don't pay your bill, we will BURN YOUR BUILDING DOWN." protection rackets, but that's not so different from the way government handles refusal to pay taxes.

>>3151926

How is it you understand the concept of insurance, but not the concept of paying a higher tax for socialized medicine or other services?

It's the exact same concept.

>>3151940

One is consensual, one is not.

>>3151942

What about when it is not consensual?

You must have insurance to drive a car. This is not a consensual situation.

You must have tenant's insurance to sign a lease (in most places), this is not a consensual situation.

Yes, you can "Say No", but it leaves you without access to a home or transportation, which is not always a choice you can make.

Also, if you do not like paying taxes in order to qualify for social programs, you always have the option to leave the country.

>>3151949

I do not support forced buying of insurance.

You are confusing state forced regulation with market "regulation." A market "regulation" would be if you want this service, you have to pay this price, or if you want this product you take full responsibility of using it. These are agreed to before the exchange happens.

You can having a home without that insurance, and you can have transportation without insurance.

I cannot just leave, I will be aggressed while attempting to leave. And I did not agree to any regulation by being born, so I have no logical responsibility to pay taxes.

>>3151976

"I will be aggressed while attempting to leave"

Explain this.

" And I did not agree to any regulation by being born, so I have no logical responsibility to pay taxes."

You use now and have used since you were born the following:

Public Roads
Public Schools
Public Property
Public Utilities

You live under the protection of a national army.

You have and still do take advantage of these services. Therefore you do have an obligation to pay taxes to help in their upkeep.

The mere irony that a world which operated according to the principles I've seen you advocate would have had you killed long since for advocating opinions so far from societal norm, makes me giggle a bit inside.

>>3152004

If I attempted to simply board a plane, I would be assaulted, kidnapped, and imprisoned.

Haha. Mobster comes into my business, tells me that he will watch over my place for money. He comes backs and tells me I have used one week of his service, and that I should pay him. The important part missing here is I did not ask for or agree to pay for the service. If I go to your place and wash your car without telling you, do you owe me money for it?

While I do agree that people like you will kill those that do not believe in the state, that hardly has any logical conclusion of me being killed.

>>3152004
You're also forgetting that his parents have also benefitted from the fruits of tax-funded public services, and if he has ever held a job that provides a service to the public he has benefitted from the customers who were able to purchase his services due to their use of publicly funded services.

This also explains why those who are rich should pay more, because they reap more benefits from public funded services though customers using those services in order to enable them to fund the richer folk.

>>3152018
How are you enjoying those taxpayer funded internet backbones that allow you to access the internet so you can complain about how you never use publically funded stuff?

Or how about the NASA/DARPA/USAF funded Xerox PARC that invented the hardware and protocols that allow your computer to communicate with the internet?

>>3152041

What? I said nothing of use mattering.

>>3152045
you used it, now you pay for it.

give taxes plz.

>>3152048

So if I wash your car you owe me money? Right?

>>3152018

I am about as far away from a nationalist as you can get. Patriotism is for idiots, and wartime. I would be very unlikely to harm anyone for acting against the laws of any country. I'm more a Secular Transhumanist.

"If I attempted to simply board a plane, I would be assaulted, kidnapped, and imprisoned."

Saying things doesn't make them true. I've flown into and out of several countries and never been assaulted kidnapped or imprisoned. Maybe if you mentioned which country (In before US.)

As to the mobster example, that's not an equivalent situation. The mobster provided no actual service, he was merely trying to extort money via threat of violence. The public services you used and continue to use even after understanding that they have a cost constitute an implied acceptance of contract. Anything else would be theft.

As an example that actually works, let's take a situation in which you are provided food and a place to stay by a third party. These things have a cost. which, as you mentioned yourself in >>3151926 means that you should pay for them.

Now, you have seen others who accepted the food and lodging provided by these people have been required to pay it back a few months later though work or payment to the third party providing the service. Knowing this, you accept the help of the third party.

In this situation, would you say you should not pay back that third party?

>>3152059

> talking about the us
> trying to argue for non us
I would like to see you simply walk to a boarding plane and not get arrested. You have to go through the government TSA to get there.

> trying to extort via violence

You just defined the government. Try opting out of their "services" and see if violence is used against you.

So you are telling me if I wash your car you owe me money? Right?

I would never consensually pay for a service I did not agree to pay for.

>>3152069
Yes, you have to go through the TSA. Do you know what percentage of people they completely deny air-flight to? About 1 in a million. Also, there are 2 countries bordering you which you can leave through by ground, and I hear before we licked the lift thing a lot of people got around by boat.

Also, the car analogy is flawed. It is not the other person making a choice to use resources in this case, it is you. What you are saying is that if I park my car in a spot labelled "Car Wash. 10$", where I see other cars being washed, and then walk away and come back in an hour, I shouldn't have to pay for the wash they just gave to my car.

It's called implied consent.

>>3152108

So I cannot simply go to the boarding area and get on a plane? Glad we cleared that up.

I said your place. The service costs another money, yet you do not want to pay. Why the inconsistency?

And being born is not implied consent to anything.

>>3152148

Right, I'm done. You aren't even listening. You're picking selective parts of every post to reply to.

Have fun guys.

>>3152167

You just defined what you did in every post.

I appreciate you abandoning the debate.

>>3152148
using public goods is implied consent.

before you were 18, you were under the umbrella of consent from your parents, when you reach the age of majority, you should be informed enough to make your own choices.

You had every opportunity to abandon the state and refuse services and thereby have ground on which to refuses taxes.

You chose instead to continue using them and complain when you are charged for their use.

You have no moral or logical ground to stand on.

>>3152185

Only if you can opt out of them. Where is the opt out paperwork?

There is no logical argument that I should be forced to pay fro a service I did not ask for an cannot opt out of.

The real debates should be over what happens when government supplied services fail. Why do they not have to pay?

>>3152192
opt out is to leave the country
have fun in somalia

>>3152242

So you cannot actually opt out? Can I just leave with all my possessions and cash?

Why would I move to a country with a state?

>>3152253
Sure you can opt out, like the others said, you can just move out of the country. You have nothing to complain about

>>3152262

Is there a way that the government will allow me to opt out without forcing me to lose my labor?