View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:14:48 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:

> If vegans just said "vegans do not consume most animal products", then
>that would be true, as would the statement "vegans do not consume the
>products of nonhuman animals". But to say that vegans do not consume animal
>products is false. Breast milk, donated organs, blood... and yes, even
>semen, are all "animal products". And even with the revised definition,
>it leaves open the possibility that Hannibal Lecter and Jeffery Dahmer could
>be perfectly happy vegans ("people... the other white meat").


The focus is on diet and what qualifies as a vegan source
of nourishment. Exchanges of body fluids during sex and
tissue transplants are not sources of nourishment and
therefore fall outside the range of this issue concerning the
vegan diet. Human milk and placentas, on the other hand,
are animal products which are eaten to gain nourishment.
These, then, remain inside the range of this issue concerning
the vegan diet, but outside the range of foods which qualify
as vegan fare.

For example, if I were to advertise in my local newspaper
for women like Susan Schulze to sell me their expressed
human milk, it wouldn't be accurate to describe myself as
a vegan.

[Susan Schulze, 31, has not only fed her daughter Sophie
for seven months but has also provided 50 gallons of milk
for other babies. The paper said she had set a fine example
as "a woman with tremendous heart and much to give".

It can be a lucrative business for the producers, who get
paid about £2.30 a pint. Some continue providing milk after
their babies have been weaned.]
http://tinyurl.com/9g10

If one extreme case can express 50 gallons of milk on top
of what she feeds her own daughter for £2.30 a pint, then
less extreme cases could easily produce half that and help
provide enough to permanently nourish several adults.


> Vegetarian is an easy definition- it's a person who doesn't eat animal
>flesh.
>