or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Need your Mary Kay links and sources
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need your Mary Kay links and sources - Page 3

post #41 of 77
CarrieBeary,
It's not JUST the parents' responsibility........it is the responsibility of society.........ALL OF US.........CORPORATIONS INCLUDED......to protect our youngest citizens. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Circ happens because we let it happen.
post #42 of 77
Well, I'm not using Mary Kay anymore. I went out and bought a Maybelliene mascara and Neutrogena lipstick. That's all the make up I will own soon. I don't know if those companies test on foreskin tissues but if they did, I would give up those too. There are so many companies to research, this could turn into a huge project.

So I'm giving up on all this MK stuff I have. Make up, lotions, perfume, face creams, brushes, etc. I was thinking of boxing it all up and sending it back with a letter about why I am boycotting them. I would hope that ANYONE with ANY of their products would do the same. Don't just throw the stuff away, mail it back.

Should I post this in activism? I'm very tempted to do so but wanted your opinions first. I think it's important that MK knows that this testing and financial support will NOT be tolerated. ANY COMPANY THAT DOES THIS SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS SICK AND WRONG. So should I post this in activism?
post #43 of 77
Deleted because the point was already made. =)
post #44 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by be11ydancer
So now it's time to find reputable makers of good cosmetics and toiletries. I was planning on looking into this place:

http://www.bodyshop.com

They have a store at a mall over here. I know they vehemently oppose animal testing (read that on the PETA site) so I'm curious what their stance is on foreskins. Anyone else have any ideas?
I don't have any hard facts about them, but I'm 99% sure they're based in London and England no longer encourages RIC. So chances may be good they don't use foreskin derivitives either. (I hope.)
post #45 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by be11ydancer
Well, I'm not using Mary Kay anymore. I went out and bought a Maybelliene mascara and Neutrogena lipstick. That's all the make up I will own soon. I don't know if those companies test on foreskin tissues but if they did, I would give up those too. There are so many companies to research, this could turn into a huge project.

So I'm giving up on all this MK stuff I have. Make up, lotions, perfume, face creams, brushes, etc. I was thinking of boxing it all up and sending it back with a letter about why I am boycotting them. I would hope that ANYONE with ANY of their products would do the same. Don't just throw the stuff away, mail it back.

Should I post this in activism? I'm very tempted to do so but wanted your opinions first. I think it's important that MK knows that this testing and financial support will NOT be tolerated. ANY COMPANY THAT DOES THIS SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS SICK AND WRONG. So should I post this in activism?
Love that idea of sending the stuff back! I think I'll do that too.

Kristi
post #46 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarrieBeary77
All of those people are involved in torture and rape of little boys. It happens ANYWAY. So the cosmetics companies benefit from the result. I don't agree with it. But I also understand that businesses do take advantage of opportunities. It's all part of business.

So I see both sides.


Do you see the legal side? There are several legal issues here.

Probably first and foremost is the rights of the owner of the body and those ownership rights. 20 or 25 years ago, there was a man who went to his doctor. The doctor drew some blood from this man and sent it away to a laboratory for testing. An immunity factor was found in his blood that was taken and sent to a pharmaceutical company who took that factor and replicated it many, many times and sold it as an immunization vaccination. The pharmaceutical company made untold million of dollars of profits from the product of this man’s blood. Some years later, another doctor told him of this. He had never heard of it and filed suit to participate in the profits. He won and the legal concept that every individual owns his/her body got a tremendous boost. Look at the parallels here. Just as that man’s blood was taken and used for profit, a man’s foreskin is taken and used for profit. Now, if a part of your body is used to produce a profit making product, you must be notified of the fact. This doesn’t happen to men who give up their foreskins for the profit of these corporations. Mary Kay has a large legal staff and being in the industry they are in, they know this and have decided to ignore this particular law. I imagine they think they will never get caught.

There is also the legal concept of ill gotten gains. This organ is taken and sold for profit and then products are made from the organ for profit. Since this was never clearly explained if explained at all, it constitutes ill gotten gains. Those gains should be sent back to the child.

There is also the legal concept of receiving stolen goods. These companies are taking the property of the child for profit and the profit from those products should be the property of the child because his rights of ownership have been violated as detailed above.

The medical profession is complicit in this theft of course and should also pay the price. This is something they started and even though they now know there is no medical justification for doing it, they continue and profit from it. Most of your argument has to do with the chronological order that it is happening. In other words, because this has already happened, then it is OK that this happens. That’s not a legitimate justification.

I think if you consider this very similar example with a slightly different chronological order, it will help you understand

Imagine that a cosmetic company and pharmaceutical company found a factor that exists only in newborn fingernails and this factor could be used in commercial cosmetic products that would make 60 year olds look 35 years old. The thing that got me thinking this way was that I saw the newborn pictures of a baby girl yesterday. She had some tiny mitts tied on her hands. Well, I had never seen this before and asked what they were all about. It was explained to me that newborn fingernails are very sharp and they can cut themselves with them. My thoughts were that it would be like having boxing gloves tied on my hands and not be able to get them off. That would be infuriating! But I digress . . . Baby fingernails are dangerous! Children’s fingernails are dangerous and adult fingernails are dangerous! Babies can cut themselves with them and children can get sick from dirt under their fingernails and lord knows, it’s difficult to clean properly under fingernails and it’s almost impossible to get kids to properly clean under fingernails. Those things are a health problem just waiting to happen. Fingernails can also be used as weapons for gawd sakes! I’ve seen it happen. The obvious answer is to just get rid of them at birth to save the world from this omnipotent danger.

Well, the pharmaceutical company and the cosmetic company recognize this danger and start airing public service announcements aimed at saving the world by advocating the removal of fingernails at birth. Of course, we know this is an altruistic campaign and that the billions of dollars they will make in profit from the processing of these fingernails into face cream is no motivation to them at all. Anyway, fingernails are not needed. Sure, they are nice to have to scratch an itch but scratching itchy insect bites with dirty fingernails can cause infections. A public health danger.

Of course, there are going to be some parents who resist so it is important to this campaign that the resistance be neutralized. One way to do it is to connect nailless fingers with the upper class. Something that the wealthy parents do that everyone should emulate. They should also make every attempt to connect it with religion. Cleanliness is next to godliness after all. It is also important that no one know just exactly who does and who doesn’t have fingernails so we will advocate that everyone wear gloves except when showering. That way, they can say that everyone has had their fingernails removed and everyone should follow suit. They will make it a obscene thing to show the fingers in public and make it shameful that poor people have not had their fingernails removed to insure that they always hide their fingers in public.

Now that we have everyone removing their baby’s fingernails, there is an adequate supply for face cream. The doctors are on board with this and recommend to all parents that they have their baby’s fingernails removed for the obvious health and safety reasons. Only an unconcerned and bad parent would even consider leaving the fingernails on. It’s almost child abuse!

Now, all of a sudden, we’re going to have all of these newborn fingernails piling up in medical waste cans and filling up landfills. Why not put them to good use? Why let them go to waste? It makes no sense when they can benefit someone.

Oh, and by the way, these fingernails can not be contaminated with anesthesia. Of course, we know from circumcision that babies can’t feel pain so no anesthesia is needed. It’s so quick! Just clamp on one forceps and a quick yank and it’s all done. Just wrap some Vaseline impregnated gauze around the tip of each finger and send them home. All of that screaming is just from them being strapped down and as we all know, some of them will sleep right through it. Others will giggle while it’s being done. All will be calm and peaceful when they are returned to mother.

You see CarrieBeary, little is changed from the chronological timeline of circumcision and little is different from circumcision. It’s fingernails instead of foreskins and it’s boys and girls instead of just boys. However the similarities are significant. It’s surgery for social reasons masquerading as medically beneficial surgery. It is permanently altering the body without considering the rights of the owner of the body. It’s surrounded by myth and superstition. In reality, there are no significant proven medical benefits. If the child never has fingernails, he/she will adapt and won’t really miss the fingernails. While there is loss, it wouldn’t be believed or considered significant. So, while the procedure would become normalized, it would be at the benefit of the pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. Do you see the ethical correlations here? Do you see how both would be unethical?




Frank
post #47 of 77
Deleting b/c I went back and saw the answer to my question!
post #48 of 77
I would imagine that even if a parent was pro-circ, and had their child circed, they wouldn't want the foreskin sold for profit........unless they got some of the profit! The foreskin selling is wrong on many levels- circ being the first, and then making profit off of it second, and not letting the true owner share in the profit. It's all so gross.

Kristi
post #49 of 77
CarrieBeary:

We don't intend to pick on you. We do intend to pick on your supplier. That's because we think they are doing something wrong. If MK Corp. were to admit what we believe to be a mistake and work with us to end this, we would support them and forgive past transgressions. It's a matter of loving the sinner and hating the sin. We would love MK Corp. if they took up our cause within the cosmetic industry but we would still hate that it's still being done by others.

Let me try another example that may illustrate how we feel: You are going to be naturally defensive if we criticize your husband, parents or child. It's even natural to be defensive about the company you work with if you like the company and it's products. Now, if your son were caught shoplifting a candy bar from a store, we would criticize that action but not you or your husband. We wouldn't even criticize your son because he is just a child, only the action. You would feel defensive simply because it was wrong and your child did it and that's absolutely normal if not totally rational. Now, if your child was 30 years old, we would criticize him because he's old enough to know better. You would probably still be defensive and that's not normal. MK Corp. is like that 30 year old child. They should know better and should act accordingly but they have not. This is not a reflection on you by any means.

By the way, as of this past week, MK Corp. still denies that they have used infant foreskin derivatives in any of their products or as testing materials in their laboratory or that they have participated in the development of these products. We know that is not true from the links above. They would do better to heed the advise of Maya Angelou. "When you know better, you do better." Their best course of of action now would be to admit their involvement, resolve to never have any involvement with infant foreskins in the future and make a $50 billion donation to NOCIRC. Well, maybe not $50 billion, but you get the idea. :LOL






Frank
post #50 of 77
By the way, I think what your friend's son has is called "webbed penis." It is a cosmetic defect only and has no functional effect. It is not an indicator for circumcision by any means. I guess it would be the equivalent of a girl having very large labia. She may decide to have them trimmed at some point in her adult life but the vast majority will remain unaltered for the rest of their lives. The vast majority of men with webbed penis also live their entire lives with it and have no intentions of surgery to change it simply for cosmetic appearance. It's just not that big a deal to them. There is danger of complications or unexpected outcomes to any surgical procedure and there is also post op pain and healing to consider. Are these risks and the pain worth it for something that probably won't matter to the child as an adult? My best guess is it won't be worth it.



Frank
post #51 of 77
Quote:
Now, if a part of your body is used to produce a profit making product, you must be notified of the fact.
Wow, imagine the class action lawsuit! It'd be like, what, 80% of adult men in the US?
post #52 of 77
No, it wouldn't be anything even close to that. First, this is something relatively recent. It appears that this research only begain in the early 1990's so that the first donors would be at most in their early teens and there would be very few of them. Maybe only a few dozen. After the technology was developed into a commercial product for laboratory use, there would be a substantial increase in donor numbers to hundreds or maybe a few thousand. In relationship to the number of boys circumcised, it is still an extremely small percentage but with this type of technology, many new uses will be found for it. One of those uses is for treatment of burn victims to replace missing skin. One of the companies that make the burn replacement says that one foreskin can be used to make a quantity of skin equal to a football field. They also claim that they have already bought all of the foreskins that they ever will because their current supply will last them indefinitely. I don't know if that is true or not.

The other current use is in over the counter wrinkle reducing creams. The prices for these creams I have seen started at $260.00 and went up from there so it is not in wide use. However, as it is with new technology, the price starts out high and competition brings it down as we have seen with computers, cellular phones, etc. I can see that in just a few years these cosmetic products could be available for as little as maybe $30-$40 per container and possibly even less. That would put a huge demand on the foreskin supply and could result in unethical companies trying to increase the supply by a false information campaign to increase the circumcision rate. You only have to look as far as examples like Enron, Adelphia and General Electric to see that these corporations are very willing to compromise their ethics for profit at the expense of their stockholders and customers. They would surely do it to baby boys who are not generally viewed as victims.




Frank
post #53 of 77
post #54 of 77
I know this is an old thread, but I saw it in my subscriptions & am wondering if either of the MK ladies got any response from MK. I see one was waiting on papers from the medical director.... Any update would be great!
post #55 of 77
post #56 of 77
I think circumcision is wrong. I will never agree with this practice.

That being said, I don't personally have a problem with scientists using discarded healthy tissue to culture more of the same.

If scientists can make things safer without resorting to testing on animals, I'm for it.

I wouldn't have a problem with donating my fingernail clippings.

(I did miss a whole page of posts on this thread, hence the edit.)
post #57 of 77
I think the parents are the ones who deserve your critcism.
It's their children they are torturing.
post #58 of 77
Lorelei, you don't know what you're talking about. Scientists can take cells from foreskins and grow them in the lab. They are used for testing, for skin grafts, for cosmetic products, for all sorts of stuff. They're not testing on "corpses" or dead tissue, they're testing on living tissue derived from amputated foreskins.

I am not going to post a million links but they're out there. I'll just post one or two:

From the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences article published in 1995 (part of the National Institutes of Health): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1995/1...novations.html

Quote:
Skin2, developed by Advanced Tissue Sciences in La Jolla, California, is a three-dimensional skin analog made of cells derived from human foreskins seeded onto a nylon mesh support. "The mesh reproduces the microenvironment that the dermal fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes require. They grow in such a way that they are reminiscent of the environment in situ, in the human body," explains Lawrence Rheins, executive director of the Skin2 division.
...

Skin2 is the only skin analog of its kind being marketed in the United States because there is little demand for these products so far. Biotechnology companies say this lack of demand is evidence of the fact that there is still not a major emphasis on developing and applying in vitro methods for toxicology testing. Still, Rheins remains hopeful: "Advanced Tissue Sciences continues to make strong efforts and investments in laboratory toxicology kits. The in vitro market, albeit small at present, will continue to grow with additional recognition and approval from the global regulators. We are also looking at ways to bring costs down while increasing availability across all sectors of the industry, including government and research."
From the Food and Drug Administration, a 1997 article: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/197_skin.html

Quote:
Organogenesis Inc., of Canton, Mass., has developed Apligraf (formerly Graftskin), a two-layer living skin substitute derived from infant foreskins. The upper layer contains keratinocytes, the dominant cell type in the epidermis. The lower layer contains collagen and fibroblasts, the main constituents of dermis. Other cell types that trigger immunological response are absent, and, as a result, this engineered tissue is not rejected. Human trials of Apligraf for treating burns, diabetic ulcers, and for use in other skin surgeries are under way.
Perhaps you should do a little more research and reading.
post #59 of 77
To the skeptics:

Please go back and read all threads on this topic. It is quite certain that foreskins are used by the cosmetic industry. There is proof listed. Whether or not MK does this may take extreme devotion to finding out the truth and it may not be that easy to uncover.
There seems to be a certain amount of credibility that MK funded processes which are questionable although they may not have a product with any questionable practices.

If you are as devoted to the rights of the newborn male as you are to MK products perhaps instead of saying I know nothing until you can prove it to me, you might be part of the inquiry.
post #60 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by be11ydancer
I am searching and searching right now. I've found some people's web pages that state the same theory and I've emailed them to ask what their sources were on it. I'm waiting for 3 responses so when I get them, I will let you know what they said.

ETA - O.K. So I'm doing a google search and found something that is very confusing to read but what it looks like is some kind of research or experiment done using foreskin to test on. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation helped fund the study. If anyone can decipher this, it might be helpful.

http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2002/volume.../1137-1143.pdf
This is by the International Journal of Oncology (Oncology is the medical study and treatment of cancer. A physician who practices oncology is an oncologist. The term is from the Greek onkos (ονκος), meaning bulk, mass or tumor, and the suffix -ology, meaning "study of". wikipedia.com)

This article appears to me to be a study on how once a cell is infected with a retrovirus, telomerase accelerates growth without compromising normal cellular structure. This appears to hold true both early and late in the cellular lifespan of human cells.

So, this is about fighting cancer, not fine lines.

Retrovirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus

Telomerase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase



Quote:
Here's something from the Society of Cosmetic Chemists:
"The Student Poster Showcase is held annually to promote student research in the Cosmetic Industry.....Second Place was awarded to Radhika Utturkar, University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, for her poster entitled "Measurement of Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMF) in Neonatal Infant Foreskin and Vernix Caseosas". If you look at their contributors, Mary Kay Inc. is one of them.
http://www.scconline.org/members/newsletter.shtml

Maybe these links are just shots in the dark. What do yall think?
I didn't see anything on your second link about that poster, or Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.

Hope my comments on the first article shed some light on this subject.

Wikipedia is great for medical terms if you don't have your Taber's laying around.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Need your Mary Kay links and sources