"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" >
wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> "It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
> >> plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
> >> honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
> >> the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
> >> or in part from animals."
> >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
> >>
> >
> > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that
to
> >anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed
"animal
> >milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless.
>
> I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception
> to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard
> himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it.

No. If a person were to exist on human breast milk, I think they would
qualify as vegan by vegans themselves, although it would be quite a bizarre
diet.

Again,the problem isn't that breast milk is intrinsicly nonvegan, the
problem is that Vegans who say they do not believe in the consumption of any
animal products for any reason, are lying. Vegans clearly believe in
consuming at least one animal product- breast milk from humans.