[user104658]

Originally Posted by glib

Here
You claim there will ‘definitely’ be (no stigma) against using animals for ‘medical reasons’

In other words

No one will have a problem against using animals for medical reasons
Or
Everyone will be fine with using animals for medical purposes 100%

Incorrect, the word stigma implies disapproval from a significant number of people in a group or society. Disapproval from a small group (say, animal rights activists) is not a “stigma”.

There is a stigma to wearing furs these days because a large percentage of people are against it (perhaps the majority). Interestingly, the same doesn’t apply to leather .

So it’s not going to apply to heart transplants.

The banning of animal testing refers to PRODUCTS, by the way. Make up, etc.

We still do medical research on animals.

Sorry to be the one to break the news.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Incorrect, the word stigma implies disapproval from a significant number of people in a group or society. Disapproval from a small group (say, animal rights activists) is not a “stigma”.

There is a stigma to wearing furs these days because a large percentage of people are against it (perhaps the majority). Interestingly, the same doesn’t apply to leather .

So it’s not going to apply to heart transplants.

The banning of animal testing refers to PRODUCTS, by the way. Make up, etc.

We still do medical research on animals.

Sorry to be the one to break the news.

Is it because leather is made from cows that have already been killed for meat where as animals that are killed and/or bred for their fur are usually traditionally wild animals and are only used for their fur?

**That's a guess I'm not 100% sure where or how they make leather but assume it's from cow hide