On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:58:06 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"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

No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple
fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk.

> although it would be quite a bizarre diet.

I agree that it would be a bizarre diet, but it's not totally
inconceivable to understand that an AIDS victim might
follow it if it were shown to be beneficial to his condition,
for one example.

> 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.

Rather, I would say that the very few are slightly misguided
as to what constitutes vegan fare, and as a result wrongly
insist that their suckling babies are vegans.