Scientists at secret German lab grow human tissue from baby foreskins in bid to end animal testing

A lot of "animal testing" (funny it's called that because the animals are not getting tested but rather used as a means of testing something else-- a means that much more often as not involves their excruciating pain and eventual death) is not sound scientifically. Yes, I know, I am sure this comment will generate a great deal of disagreement and may well totally overshadow the primary point of the article and the MRA-oriented nature of the breathtakingly disgusting nature of the reported activity. But that is not my intention. Clearly the people at this lab have finally realized that using "animal models" to find out if a drug or cosmetic may be bad for humans by using it on or in a creature of a totally different species is, well, kind of dumb and subject to a great deal of false conclusions. So instead they have decided to use human cells to test to see if bad things happen to said cells when they are exposed to various drugs or chemicals. That in fact does make sense.

What is wrong here is that it creates yet another secondary market for human foreskins, making the financial incentive for the relevant industries to fund pro-circ mis- and disinformation dissemination and projects to keep those foreskins coming. Nothing is more powerful than a vested interest combined with a moral imperative. The circumcision-reduces-HIV-spread-risk myth combined with the oodles of money to be made by these kinds of uses of stolen (ie, taken from a baby without his permission) foreskins is going to be, if not already, a very formidable force to reckon with.

I'd also like to pint out that there are other ways to get human stem cells that do not entail committing what should be considered felony assault and malicious wounding on an infant.

So it's desirable to stop cruelty to animals, by no longer testing cosmetics on them, but it's perfectly OK to continue cruelty to males (circumcision). Now that makes sense.

Does anyone else find it ironic that they're using parts of the male anatomy, obtained against the donors will, to test products only women want to buy? That is oppression in it's purest form. Who gives a shit about a baby boy's autonomy, as long as women can have their make up! I read an article on aVfM recently about how some cosmetics products actually contain foreskins. Celebrities such as Barbara Walters and Oprah used a cream which was made from this, and they were not only aware of the fact, they bragged about it! Demonize men any way you want, but at least we don't use products containing parts from girls from forced circumcisions.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

This story makes me rage with anger. Imagine we lived in a world where we forcibly removed bits of female genitalia to test cosmetic products on them that would mainly be bought by men?

This is more than oppression, it is down right slavery that males since birth have NO control or say over their own bodies.

I think its time to promote female circumcision. After all, several studies in East Africa have shown that Circumcised Women are less likely to get and spread HIV. If its good enough for men, then its good enough women. Im sure the clitoris can be used for many things - cosmetics, drug testing, experiments etc.

The law for good or bad, right or wrong, views non-humans as property but singles out certain kinds of those animals as being entitled to a certain level of treatment provided they are being utilized in a certain way by certain people. What this means is that if you have a cat, and this cat is kept at your house, you are required to treat the cat a certain way. There are certain things you cannot do to this cat, and certain things you must do for this cat, in order to remain in compliance with the law. However this same cat, if the legal property of some scientific institution, will no longer have these protections. Same is true for dogs and other animals normally protected as so-called companion animals. As for other animals such as cows, etc. they have almost no legal protections regarding humane treatment.

Now switch back to what sort of protections infant boys have. One cannot shake an infant without it being considered a serious assault. One cannot take a sharp knife and cut around an infant boy or girl's arm unless it is done by a medical professional for the infant's pressing and clear healthcare needs without it being considered a criminal act. Yet a doctor or sometimes a religious person with a title is allowed by the law to remove perfectly healthy skin tissue from a very sensitive and vulnerable part of an infant boy's body without a pressing or urgent medical need associated with the act.

The point here is this: infant human males seem to be getting treated under the law the same way companion animals are treated. Sometimes they have rights to bodily integrity and to have a life free of abuse or torture and sometimes not, depending on circumstances. In this case, swapping out animals as test subjects for the foreskins of infant boys is being hailed as progress. So who is higher on the scale of rights, consideration, and sympathy here? Sounds like the animals.

Yes. Just imagine if the script were flipped. The White House would be involved. The State Department would be involved. It would be all over the news and NOW would be marching through every Main Street in America. Angry mobs would probably storm the lab and destroy it. And the people who did it would undoubtedly not even be arrested. In fact I doubt there would even be an investigation. But since it is baby boys who are the victims and women who are the beneficiaries, it is considered a great thing. I don't put anything past how low things can go when a society like ours is in the grips of nymphotropism.

I concur, Matt. Our society is reverting to a racist supremacy. It doesn't get much lower than that. Only replace the word racist with sexist.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!