Digger wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>
>>Digger wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Digger" > wrote:
>>
>>Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while.
>>Congratulations.
>>
>>Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading
>>this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about:
>>
>>There are several differen types of Vegetarians:
>
>
> Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject
> line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether
> human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare,
> rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic
> definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk
> is an animal product consisting of animal fats and
> proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be.

Correct. However, you seem to be rather misguided with regards to your
definitions of vegan and vegetarian, which involved you claiming several
times that a) milk was not vegetarian, and b) babies could never be
vegetarian.

Now, based on the original definition of vegetarian, as well as the
common use of it, you are wrong.

I will leave the discussion of "is breastmilk for babies of the same
speciece provided by the mother vegan or not" up to other people. If
you are vegan, and you choose not to feed your baby your breastmilk
based purely on the desire to be a "textbook" vegan, you should have
your child removed from your care. There is no exploitation in feeding
your own young the way nature intended, and it is, in fact, the only
healthy thing to do.

-- Blue