Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Avoid Any Products Containing Aborted Fetal Cells

Posted 2 years ago on March 31, 2015, 9:48 p.m. EST by Nevada1 (5843)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

14 Comments

14 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (5843) 2 years ago

The people prosecuting this girl, are likely eating fetal products. How does it all play out?

http://truth-out.org/news/item/30004-twenty-years-in-prison-for-miscarrying-the-case-of-purvi-patel-and-the-criminalization-of-pregnancy

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

And what I always find odd is that corpirations are never charged for the chemicals, endocrine disruptors, and gmo's that can harm fertility...or companies that pollute water supplies couldn't possibly be linked to any miscarriages...? Not to mention birth defects ( which is often a reason women choose to abort) and yet women " burn em!"...apparently if only they had the will to prosecute corporations whose Chemicals can cause miscarriage and spontaneous abortion...I wonder did this woman consume any gmo product or paraben / bpa/ phalate products that could be a culprit? Bet they can't...because the products aren't labeled as cigarettes are...we don't get to prevent it either...no now we can be prosecuted? Wow.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

How about a choice to not let companies chemically induce infertility or miscarriage by labeling such products as well as prosecuting them for attempted abortion against a woman's will when they carelessly pollute our bodies and water supplies? Where are the pro-lifers on this?

http://www.ewg.org/research/exposing-cosmetics-cover/toxic-chemicals-threaten-healthy-births

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

EXPOSING THE COSMETICS COVER-UP: TOXIC CHEMICALS THREATEN HEALTHY BIRTHS By Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs and Nneka Leiba, Deputy Director of Research

For years, obstetricians and gynecologists have warned pregnant women to avoid everything from tobacco and caffeine to high heels.

Now, it appears, they will begin alerting them about something else: toxic chemicals in their cosmetics and other products.

As EWG has reported for more than a decade, many chemicals found in personal care products have the potential to hinder people’s ability to reproduce, to interfere with pregnancies and to cause birth defects.

And recently, citing scientific evidence accumulated over the last 15 years, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have urged doctors to warn their patients that exposure to toxic chemicals before conception and during pregnancy can have significant and long-lasting effects on reproductive health.

The medical groups’ conclusions align with EWG’s research, which has determined that reproductive health problems linked to toxic chemicals in cosmetics and other personal care products include:

Infertility Low birth weight Preterm birth Cancers Birth defects For example, in 2005, scientists at the University of Rochester reported that prenatal exposure to phthalates —plasticizers commonly used in personal care products — was linked to abnormal reproductive development in baby boys. Despite these findings phthalates are still used in cosmetic products, including some nail polishes and “fragrance” mixtures.

Another group of troublesome ingredients oftem found in personal care products from moisturizers to toothpaste are parabens. Studies indicate they can mimic the hormone estrogen and interfere with the normal function of the hormone system.

Although dangerous chemicals are sometimes found in food, pregnant women are more likely to smear chemicals on their bodies than on their bagels.

According to an EWG survey, an average woman uses about twelve personal care products each day, exposing herself to about 168 unique chemicals. These products don’t always remain on the skin’s surface. Many cosmetics ingredients penetrate the skin. Scientists have found ingredients such as phthalates and fragrance components in human tissues.

Most cosmetics are not subject to any meaningful regulation. EWG is trying to change that. But powerful cosmetics houses are fighting efforts to give the federal Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate chemicals in cosmetics. They say they conduct their own “safety” reviews, but they do not have to share them with the FDA. What’s more, the FDA does not have the resources or legal authority to conduct its own safety reviews or to compel studies by cosmetic companies.

As the medical groups have pointed out in their joint statement, “Preconception and prenatal exposure to toxic environmental agents can have a profound and lasting effect on reproductive health across the life course…. Because of deficiencies in the current regulatory structure, unlike pharmaceuticals, most environmental chemicals have entered the marketplace without comprehensive and standardized information regarding their reproductive or other long-term toxic effect.”

Among the major companies that persist in using potentially ingredients despite mounting evidence of their dangers are L’Oreal and Revlon. They produce and sell a number of personal care products made with hazardous parabens. For example, L’Oreal’s Revitalift Cream Cleanser and Revlon’s Colorsilk line of hair colors contain at least one paraben.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (5843) 2 years ago

You made some good points here elf3. The corporations can conduct any type of atrocity. At the same time, the full weight of the world comes down on one of us (without reason).

And as you said, where are the pro-lifers?

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

Well they don't seem to be there after they are born...to struggling parents working two jobs to try to feed them....because we would have a lot more Occupiers fighting against this economy. Fetuses become the 99 percent. I bet abortion goes up when living gets too tough. Want to prevent abortion? Bring back upward mobility and a fair economy. Walk the talk.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

upword mobility by definition is unfair

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

I disagree depending on context...upward mobility with a chance to work hard and accomplish something through one's own ambition and discipline gives people satisfaction and purpose. When they are locked out of that I think they start to feel lost and useless. Which is why a job in the service sector or a multinational monopoly can't sustain the majority of people. We need to feel creative and autonomous. We need to be able to execute our ideas. The jobs of today are monotonous...stifling, and generally purposeless. Serving the machine is a hopeless life. We are losing the individual...even in the rhetoric and propaganda...snowflakes and all. But guess what we are ...that is our nature they want us to oppress it. WS is filing us down to fit the system they profit from...and preventing entrepreneurs.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

"upward" mobility assumes an unfair system

one cannot be "higher" than another if the system where fair

[-] 4 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

Sure they can...they just have to have a good work ethic. I don't think our movement is about creating Communism where we all make the same exact pay...it is about having choices and a fair playing field that allows us room to choose how far we want to go. Currently we are pulling a wagon full of CEOs banks and landlords..that is not democracy. We deserve the chance to put our foot on the field...and create our own paths without competing against monopoly wealth.

[-] 5 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

That said we need to redefine our vision of happiness in this country. Our culture is sick. We are relying on material things and one upsmanship to feed our souls. It is sad. But that has been fed to us too.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

loss the metaphor obfuscation

[-] 3 points by Rollo (60) 2 years ago

Wow, there are alot of sick corporations out there.

When sane people saw the movie 'Soylent Green' they got nauseated.

When corporations saw the movie they got inspired.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 2 years ago

LOL