Need your Mary Kay links and sources - Page 4

[hummingbear]

Originally Posted by lorelei

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

Please consider the differences.

Your fingernails are dead tissue before clipping and you are giving your consent.

A foreskin is living tissue and the baby is not giving consent.



oh, and fingernails grow back

[MelissaEvans]

Originally Posted by lorelei

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.

These points have been brought up before, but here's a run down:
* How would you feel if they used amputated female genital skin from Africa? Most of us would find that horribly wrong; but it's OK to use boy's skin.
* It has been mentioned that tissue that is used for testing cannot be contaminated with pain relief drugs so this barbaric practice is even worse as the torchured child has nothing for the pain.
* Now take into account that doctors are making money on the procedure twice - how likely are they to tell mom and dad "No, I don't do that because it's unethical"? It perpetuates the practice because now doctors have added incentive to continue mutilating babies.

To be honest, I don't care as much about rabits as I do newborn human beings. Not that I think animal testing is acceptable, but I think it's the lesser of these two evils.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by MelissaEvans

* Now take into account that doctors are making money on the procedure twice - how likely are they to tell mom and dad "No, I don't do that because it's unethical"? It perpetuates the practice because now doctors have added incentive to continue mutilating babies.

Exactly! This is market driven. Those who stand to make money on the technology will promote circumcision of newborns. The genital tissue of girls could be used in the same way but that is not socially acceptable. However, I believe that if the supply of foreskins were to dry up, they would start importing female genital parts from Africa to support their market with the justification "They are thrown away any way. Why not put them to good use?" Of course, where there is money to be made, the pressure on African families to circumcise their daughters would increase just like they talk about all of the "good" things they can do with this "disposable" male part.



Frank

[be11ydancer]

Originally Posted by lorelei

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.

I went back to the poster link and the newsletter which I got my information from has been updated and doesn't have that info on it. I posted that link over a year ago which is why it's probably outdated. Why is it beyond your scope of belief that a cosmetic company would use foreskin tissue or any such thing to enhance their products? It doesn't just go in the trash. If it did, r.i.c. would have ended a while ago. As long as there is money to be made from foreskins, there will always be circumcision. Just as there is money to be made from vaccinating, there will always be children with vaccine injuries, and so on.

[boingo82]

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=288181

Mary Kay foundation supporting a study that used foreskin-derived cells, link in 1st post of that thread.

There is your proof.

[Amydoula]

I haven't read through all of this yet but for those of you who want a WONDERFUL skin care product that is all natural and a great alternative to MK try www.terressentials.com I have no ownership or anything in the company but LOVE all their products especially their facial care line.

Amy

[lovebug]

so lets all boycott makeup as a whole. thats what we are saing right? this is a prob (if a prob at all) with most makeup (if this is found to be true). we cant have our cake and eat it too. circ is wrong yes, but i like makeup and if moms and dad all over the world have a choice to do it or not and they do that is not my prob. Mary Kay Ash foud. prob did fund a study but i will tell you it was not to benf. herself! and i would rather have it tested on that ( cuz we can learn more then if it is ok for the face or not) then a dog or cat. i feel that this has no truth to it at all.

[hummingbear]

[Quirky]

Oh, fer crying all night. It's not as if makeup is a basic human necessity, like food and water, or a fundamental human right, like say NOT HAVING HALF YOUR GENITALS AMPUTATED AT BIRTH.

You think doctors are interested in educating parents when they can make money off amputated foreskins? I don't think so.

[dynamohumm6]

I know I already said this in the other Mary Kay thread, but the problem is that the market for this needs to be sustained.
IF doctors that are making money by performing circs tell parents the truth about circ not being medically necessary and not recommended by the AAP, they may lose the money they would've made performing the circ if the parents decide not to circ. THEN, the HOSPITAL loses the money they would've made by selling the foreskin to a company/foundation. There may not be a direct passage of money (as it's illegal to sell body parts, but who knows if that applies to foreskin--as nothing else seems to), but I find it hard to believe that there isn't an exchange of funds somehow between the hospital and the enterprise that is obtaining the foreskins.

Don't know about you, but I don't trust doctors OR hospitals OR your average cosmetic company, when money is concerned. Especially given the sorry financial state many hospitals are finding themselves in these days.

[be11ydancer]

If you love make up that much, and I'll admit that I wear it sometimes and it's usually something cheap from the grocery store, then try one of the several companies that actually states that they don't test on foreskins or animals. Terressentials, like the pp suggested, is one and if I remember right, their web site has a statement regarding that very thing. You can also do a google search for "organic cosmetics" and I'm willing to bet that these companies are less likely to test on foreskin tissues. If I were you, I would email specific companies directly and ask them. It looks like in that same google search that there are many wahms selling cosmetics. I REALLY doubt that they test on foreskins.

Not using Mary Kay cosmetics is not the end all to you wearing make-up. Talk about product loyalty. Wow.

[boingo82]

Originally Posted by lovebug

so lets all boycott makeup as a whole. thats what we are saing right? this is a prob (if a prob at all) with most makeup (if this is found to be true). we cant have our cake and eat it too. circ is wrong yes, but i like makeup and if moms and dad all over the world have a choice to do it or not and they do that is not my prob. Mary Kay Ash foud. prob did fund a study but i will tell you it was not to benf. herself! and i would rather have it tested on that ( cuz we can learn more then if it is ok for the face or not) then a dog or cat. i feel that this has no truth to it at all.

Is it really a choice when you're asked 6 times by your ped to circ your son? Because I was. Why do you think he was pressuring me?

[channelofpeace]

Originally Posted by lorelei

I think the parents are the ones who deserve your critcism.
It's their children they are torturing.

This is for the most part, ridiculous! Absolutely and utterly ridiculous! Because most parents are so culturally diluted that they wouldn't know their head from their a$$ in regards to what is truth and what is myth about RIC. Most parents are so ignorant about it, they don't even know that there is an issue involved. If a parent is informed and still decides to do it, by all means, flame away, but i have not often found this to be the case.

It is about make-up people! Make-up! I would still think it was unethical even if they were doing something really beneficial like a cure for cancer, but this is just make-up! No matter what they used the skin for, it isn't their's to use, but being that it is make-up makes this all the more infuriating. Perspective!

[lovebug]

i understand what you all are saying. maybe it is just me, but me and dh are just ttc, and our obgyn has already talke to us about circ and told us that is is not something that NEEDS to be done and all the other pros & cons. if you doc does not go over both the pros and cons, and you say no i dont want my son circ and they still ask then find a new doc. i also think that some people would do it weather or not the ped told them the cons. sad but true. i use to work in the hosp. and i know that most of the docs. that worked with, told pts the cons and that is was something that is in todays world done for looks. guess what, they still circ there kids. that there choise right or wrong,there choice not mine, the docs, or anyone elses. and i dont always think that its about the $$$$$$$$$ i think that is how people view non-circ. is that right no, but its the way thing are. with that being said i think this makeup thing is made way bigger then it needs to be.

[MelissaEvans]

Originally Posted by lovebug

i understand what you all are saying. maybe it is just me, but me and dh are just ttc, and our obgyn has already talke to us about circ and told us that is is not something that NEEDS to be done and all the other pros & cons.

I have yet to find a single true "pro." If a doctor has presented any "pros", then the doctor is saying it's an acceptable choice, and I disagree.

[MelissaEvans]

This is a thread I started with letters I wrote and responses I got.
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...t=cruelty+free

[Vito's Mommy]

Just curious....Carrybeary

>Isn't questioning everything what we natural-minded people are about? Researching everything? <

Just curious. How much research have you done into MK? Do you know what ingredients are in each product? Are they natural and narurally derived? Are they safe for the customer. A while back, MK was rewarding their reps w/fur coats. Last I heard, they no longer do that...in America, but are still rewarding reps w/fur coats in ohter countries.
Aside from that, if you are anti-circ then why wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of the question as well instead of waiting for an answer?
Just curious