snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 19 October 2008, 11:52 PM
LyndaD's Avatar
LyndaD LyndaD is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,243
Default Tissue from aborted fetuses in makeup

Today someone mentioned that some cosmetic companies (they can't remember which ones) use tissue from aborted fetuses in their makeup. I know I read something refuting this on Snopes 3 or 4 years ago, but I can't find it now. I've done searches and I've read through every category (Inboxer Rebellion, Medical, etc) that I can remotey connect this to.
This isn't the first UL this person has authoritatively passed off as fact (I've also heard them assert we don't really have to pay taxes, too). I'd really like to be able to go back to this person and show them that they are incorrect on this. Maybe someone who's search skills are stronger than mine could help me out?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20 October 2008, 12:01 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

I couldn't fine what you were looking for, but I did find this article, 101 Uses for a Dead (or Live) Baby.

Which was illuminating. $25 a batch for aborted fetuses. And the proceeds went to purchase cookies and Kool-Aid!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20 October 2008, 12:10 AM
LyndaD's Avatar
LyndaD LyndaD is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,243
Default

Yes, I think something like this is where they got their info. But I remember reading quotes from a hospital discussing the proceedures and legal requirements for the disposal of biological material (which included removed organs, amputations, placentas and aborted fetuses). The conclusion was that there was no actual proof for this particular UL, just a lot of hersay and speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20 October 2008, 12:16 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Oh yeah, you can't just toss medical waste. It's biohazard, and its proper disposal is governed by state laws.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20 October 2008, 12:45 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is online now
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,297
Jaded

You know it's really ridiculous that you should even have to debunk this, 'cause it's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. If this person believes this and, the ole' "taxes are illegal/we don't have to pay them" thing is she really worth the effort to try and illuminate? Will she even believe you when you try?

P&LL, Syl'mind boggled'vanz
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20 October 2008, 01:32 AM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
I couldn't fine what you were looking for, but I did find this article, 101 Uses for a Dead (or Live) Baby.

Which was illuminating. $25 a batch for aborted fetuses. And the proceeds went to purchase cookies and Kool-Aid!
The article seems more than slightly slanted. This bit stuck out

Quote:
Everything you have just read is quite true. Dr.
Fairfax has documentation and clippings to support every point made in
this article. You may obtain a copy from her - Please send a donation
with your request for the 10 pages to Dr. Olga Fairfax, 12105
Livingston St., Weaton, MD 20902. Olga Fairfax, Ph.D is director of
Methodist United for Life.
Or "We'll prove it, if you send us some money first." Anyone reaching for their credit card?

In all honesty, how much collagen could you extract from an aborted foetus? At the legal limit for a TAB they are pretty small. It would really seem to be more trouble than it's worth for the cosmetic companies.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20 October 2008, 01:41 AM
Bonnie's Avatar
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
 
Join Date: 01 January 1970
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 112
Icon97

Although we looked at this a couple of times on the old message board, here's Brunvand's take on this oldie (from The Mexican Pet, p. 93):

"The Secret Ingredient" (scroll to page 93 if that link doesn't take you right there)

Bonnie "you've got the cutest little babyface" Taylor
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:04 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Although we looked at this a couple of times on the old message board, here's Brunvand's take on this oldie (from The Mexican Pet, p. 93):

"The Secret Ingredient" (scroll to page 93 if that link doesn't take you right there)

Bonnie "you've got the cutest little babyface" Taylor
From your link:

Quote:
Would you believe it if I told you that many of the cosmetics you use every day contain an ingredient derived from the fetuses of aborted babies?
Wow, I didn't realize so many aborted babies were pregnant!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:06 AM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,321
Default

Wouldn't that be prohibitively expensive? And it's represented in the Brunvand link as being a convenient alternative to beef collagen. WTF is convenient about it?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:15 AM
Salamander Salamander is offline
 
Join Date: 14 June 2005
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 5,035
Australia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Wouldn't that be prohibitively expensive? And it's represented in the Brunvand link as being a convenient alternative to beef collagen. WTF is convenient about it?
That's an easy one. With all of these godless atheists, feminists and what-have-you there are clearly more aborted fetuses than there are beef cattle.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:16 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is online now
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
WTF is convenient about it?
The rationale it provides anti-choice groups, I suppose.

Although I've never that "eww, gross" was a good reason to make something illegal, which is why I have yet to be persuaded by a picture of an aborted fetus, like the one that was on the side of a truck driving around my university. It was placed with a quarter next to it for reference. I thought it looked like a weird alien insect with that next to it.

From the linked article:

Quote:
Babies used to be burned on the altar to Baal; now they're burned in furnaces at the sites of their deaths.
No matter where they die? If a baby dies of SIDS the parents have to throw it in their home furnace?

Quote:
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that goldfish cannot be
awarded as prizes in games of chance. This violates the state's anti-
cruelty law to protect the "tendency to dull humanitarian feelings and
corrupt the morals of those who observe them." This same court upheld
mandatory state funding of abortions!
But did they rule that babies can be awarded as prizes?

Quote:
Dr. Robert Schwartz, chief of pediatrics at the Cleveland
Metropolitan Hospital, said that, "After a baby is delivered, while it
is still linked to its mother by the umbilical cord, I take a blood
sample, sever the cord and then as quickly as possible remove the
organs and tissues."
A doctor said that? Does that even square up with any actual method of abortion?

Last edited by lord_feldon; 20 October 2008 at 02:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:29 AM
LyndaD's Avatar
LyndaD LyndaD is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,243
Default

After reading through the chapter in the book, I think I will printi t out and give it to the person (who is a him, not a her). I don't know that it will make much difference, but I feel like I need to do something to refute this.
Thanks for the link, Bonnie, I appreciate it.
I think when I was looking at this particular UL before, it was on the old board. I don't know if that makes a difference or not.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20 October 2008, 09:05 PM
LyndaD's Avatar
LyndaD LyndaD is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,243
Default

Gah! I can't print it. Rats. I guess Ill settle for writing a letter to them referncing the material as well as the sources in the book. It's better than nothing, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20 October 2008, 09:39 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 5,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salamander View Post
That's an easy one. With all of these godless atheists, feminists and what-have-you there are clearly more aborted fetuses than there are beef cattle.
Don't forget the vegetarians, who keep the ratio of aborted fetuses to beef cattle hovering right around 3:1.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 20 October 2008, 09:46 PM
GenYus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
The young couple who wanted to conceive a child to be aborted so
that the father to be could use the baby's kidneys for a transplant that he needed himself.
Like fetal-size kidneys are going to do any good to an adult.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 20 October 2008, 09:59 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,746
Default

Quote:
now they're burned in furnaces at the sites of their deaths.
We here at "Denver's Dachau"* don't cremate.


* One of our daily protesters has a sign with this soubriquet.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 20 October 2008, 11:42 PM
Spamamander's Avatar
Spamamander Spamamander is offline
 
Join Date: 01 January 2006
Location: Central WA
Posts: 4,383
Default

I hereby dub said protester "Denver's DipS***"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21 October 2008, 12:02 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Once you boil it down to the collagen that cosmetics use, I don't think there's any real difference between human-derived and beef, goat, sheep, whatever, derived collagen. That means there's no compelling reason to use human fetuses, and lots of public-relations reasons not to. And just the transportation costs of fetuses have to make them more expensive than slaughterhouse leftovers. Just a WAG, but the skin of a slaughtered beef cow has to provide the collagen of 10-20 aborted fetuses. Actually, probably more, but I'm thinking late-term and miscarriages; I don't think the products of a first-trimester abortion would be worth the cost of storage to a cosmetics manufacturer who is thinking of them in terms of collagen yield.

Which is just another example of how anti-abortion types think of aborted fetuses as babies, and have really no idea what the product of an abortion looks like. Several six to eight pound babies might yield some usable collagen in one day, though I'm sure a slaughterhouse produces a lot more. But the result of several early abortions does not weigh half of what one newborn weighs.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21 October 2008, 12:04 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Would their even be that much collagen in a first-trimester fetus?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21 October 2008, 04:12 AM
Cactus Wren's Avatar
Cactus Wren Cactus Wren is offline
 
Join Date: 05 June 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Dr. Robert Schwartz, chief of pediatrics at the Cleveland
Metropolitan Hospital, said that, "After a baby is delivered, while it
is still linked to its mother by the umbilical cord, I take a blood
sample, sever the cord and then as quickly as possible remove the
organs and tissues."

A doctor said that? Does that even square up with any actual method of abortion?
Searching the website of MetroHealth Medical Center (formerly Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital), the only occurrence of the phrase "Robert Schwartz" is here:

Quote:
The primary goal of the Robert Schwartz, M.D., Center for Metabolism and Nutrition is to foster interdisciplinary collaborative research and training in Nutrition and Metabolism. The Center faculty represent multiple departments at MetroHealth Medical Center and the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The faculty have a long standing record in the application of state-of-the-art technologies, in particular stable isotopic tracers and mass spectrometry, for the study of whole body and regional metabolism in humans....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.