Some pregnancy tests (as far as I know most/all) use animal antibodies, called monoclonal antibodies. These antibodies are grown/farmed from animals, often mice or rabbits.

Because these pregnancy tests use animal products, I don't think they count as vegan (though that's somewhat subjective). Are there any clearly vegan tests?

  • 2
    Waiting for approximately nine months will give you a high accuracy result. You probably should define the constraints at play. The obvious answer would be: as fast and reliable as the non vegan tests but then what about a test that is slightly faster but not as reliable or vice versa? – Nobody Mar 27 '17 at 21:10
  • Just a precision, "monoclonal antibodies" means that a sole antibody is used, as opposition with "polyclonal antibodies" where several antibodies targets differents part of the target. – Edelk Jan 21 '18 at 9:40
  • I doubt that most commercial tests use antibodies from animal origin. Sounds too expensive. Cheaper to manufacture synthetic antibodies. Can someone add a reference to my claim? I was searching online and couldn't find what antibodies are used in pregnancy tests: synthetic or originated from animals – cloud_traveler Jan 28 '18 at 5:19

Tracking of your basal body temperature as described in detail in the lower half of this article - https://www.verywell.com/body-basal-temperature-chart-to-detect-early-pregnancy-1960284 Is an old-fashioned method of identifying a pregnancy which would avoid the use of animal antibodies.

Further scientific source: http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/basal-body-temperature/basics/definition/prc-20019978

For more information regarding the proven correlation between basal body temperature and ovulation/gestation: http://www.webmd.com/baby/tc/basal-body-temperature-bbt-charting-topic-overview

Also: https://baby-pedia.com/charting-body-temperature-pregnancy-change/

  • 5
    Can you find some scientific evidence that this method works? Or numbers that measure its accuracy? – Turion Feb 5 '17 at 11:42
  • 1
    @Turion sorry, your comment suggest you don't understand the scientifically proven correlation between basal body temperature and ovulation/gestation. For more details on that please see webmd.com/baby/tc/… – ShanMag Feb 5 '17 at 13:03
  • 2
    I don't doubt that there is a correlation. Please don't take my comment as a starting point for a rant. As you certainly know, a correlation has rarely coefficient 1, so a correlation need not be perfect. Furthermore, I'm asking about the accuracy of the method. E.g. in theory, condoms absolutely prevent pregnancy, but in practice, there is a risk that it doesn't work. So I'm asking now what the risk of this method is. – Turion Feb 5 '17 at 13:09
  • 5
    Also, while it's great that you're supplying further links for your claims, they aren't really scientific sources (i.e. published in a peer-reviewed journal on medicine or biology). – Turion Feb 5 '17 at 13:12
  • 1
    @Turion Rant? I fear you read some sort of tone into my comment that I promise you was not there, just trying to understand your comment further. The Mayo Clinic article is very much a scientific source and a lot of peer-reviewed medicial journals are its groundwork (they're listed at the bottom of the article itself)? – ShanMag Feb 5 '17 at 13:20

If you're willing to be patient, and don't need an answer ASAP, there's always the ultrasound. An ultrasound can show the gestational sac as early as three weeks after conception (the fifth week of the pregnancy). Using a transvaginal ultrasound, the gestational sac can be detected up to a week earlier. The fetus itself can usually be detected a week later, and the fetal heartbeat, while not audible on a fetal doppler, can be seen as a flutter on the ultrasound around 6.5 weeks into the pregnancy. While there is delay compared to when a dip-stick style test could detect the human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone, which might be able to detect the hCG during the second week of the pregnancy (almost a week before the expected period), it is very reliable.

If a dip-stick method detects a pregnancy, the next step is usually an ultrasound anyway. The process of scheduling an ultrasound, especially with the way some insurances work, it's likely that the time-frames will be right for detecting the gestational sac, at least. As a side benefit, there's nothing quite so reassuring as seeing the flutter of the fetal heartbeat on the screen while they're doing the ultrasound, and most technicians will also print out a copy of "baby's first picture" for you. A dip-stick test offers no such benefits.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.