Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:45 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why is breast feeding considered vegan?

So, in other words, the definition of vegans as "people who do not
consume
animal products" is false.


that assertion is right - vegans seek to avoid doing things that inherently
exploit, or cause suffereing to other beings (it is an
anti-slavery/suffering sentiment)

And again, what is animal exploitation? Is eating a dead cow (ie, a cow
that I did not necessarily kill) vegan?


if you found a dead animal that had died by accident, it would not be
unvegan to eat it, although you might be taking food away from predators -
in reality this is not a useful consideration, because the reality of animal
consumption is mass exploitation and a lot of suffering (a vegan campaign to
protest against picking up roadkills to eat is pointless because that
doesn't really happen! - but if it did, I would be more convinced that
humans are natural meat eaters)

How about I find an abandoned egg on the ground and I decide to eat it, is
that vegan? Some tribes in South Asia, after the tribe member died, they
ate the body... doesn't sound "exploitative" to me, but it would hardly

fit
the bill as being vegetarian faire, right?


cannibalism of someone who died naturally isn't exploitative - however, a
good few vegans find that once they drop meat from the diet they lose
interest or are even repulsed by it (I was repulsed by meat in my childhood
anyway, same as for drinking beer or coffee, and smoking.)

Rice growing could, theoretically, involve the deaths of animals. So
could growing wheat for that matter.


True. As I said it is about _intentional_ exploitation. Some mainly insect
collateral damage doesn't seem to count. Just about every food system will
cause insect deaths. Free roaming cattle probably eat and trample a lot of
insects to. No dig permaculture and careful agroforestry can avoid a lot of
insect death also.

Vegetarian is easy to define- it's somebody that doesn't eat animal

flesh.
Vegan is alot harder to define, it would seem.


a useful definition may be found here
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/ at the original home of veganism

"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "

John




  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:53 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus"

wrote:

Isn't a human an animal,


We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)

so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?


Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.


incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of veganism, then work
from there

Human milk and placentas are a non-vegan food source,
so when you read any vegan material claiming these foods
to be vegan fare, you'll know they're lying.


No those assertions are quite correct.

One could argue that cows give up their milk voluntarily,


Cows are domesticated imbreeds with little of their original instincts
left - wild bovids do not welcome humans to come and steal their milk. I
doubt cows really volunteer their milk either, other than perhaps to relieve
the burden. However, since the calves that are taken are caused to suffer by
this and the mother cow, then that is unacceptable to a vegan.

John


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:59 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Coleman" wrote
"Digger" wrote


so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?


Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.


incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of veganism, then
work
from there


This would have been a good place to offer one.


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:16 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:

Isn't a human an animal,


We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)

so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?


Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.


incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of veganism, then work
from there


Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.

Human milk and placentas are a non-vegan food source,
so when you read any vegan material claiming these foods
to be vegan fare, you'll know they're lying.


No those assertions are quite correct.


Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?

One could argue that cows give up their milk voluntarily,


Cows are domesticated imbreeds with little of their original instincts
left


They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
vegan fare while human milk is?

- wild bovids do not welcome humans to come and steal their milk.


You cannot say that of all feral cows. There may be instances
where their milk can be taken from them quite easily, being such
docile beasts by nature. Would that be vegan fare?

I
doubt cows really volunteer their milk either, other than perhaps to relieve
the burden.


Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
aren't involved in its production?

However, since the calves that are taken are caused to suffer by
this and the mother cow, then that is unacceptable to a vegan.


What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:35 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

So, in other words, the definition of vegans as "people
who do not consume animal products" is false.


that assertion is right


Meaning, in truth vegans can eat meat?

- vegans seek to avoid doing things that inherently
exploit, or cause suffereing to other beings (it is an
anti-slavery/suffering sentiment)


You're watering it down to allow meat eaters and dairy
users to include themselves among vegans, as long as
they can prove the source of their nourishment wasn't
cruelly exploited.

And again, what is animal exploitation? Is eating a dead cow (ie, a cow
that I did not necessarily kill) vegan?


if you found a dead animal that had died by accident, it would not be
unvegan to eat it,


Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.

although you might be taking food away from predators -


Irrelevant.
[..]


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:44 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message

...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus"

wrote:

Isn't a human an animal,

We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)

so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?

Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.


incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of veganism, then

work
from there


Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.


incorrect - please start with the right defiition

as stated befo
"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/

Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?


According to the original definition above yes, but not according to the
traditional practices of vegans. As with Islam, there is Islam the religion
and the traditions of Islamists. In practical terms vegans avoid animal
products because exploitation is usually inherent.

They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
vegan fare while human milk is?


Already explained. Cows do not volunteer their milk, it is all part of a
cruel system of exploitation and extermination.

Distress to Young Calf & Mother
The harsh reality is that to produce milk, a cow must have a calf. To
maximise production, each calf is taken from its mother within 24-48 hours
of birth. Calves would naturally suckle for 6-12 months.

Separation is a distressing process as mother and calf form a strong
maternal bond. Dairy cow husbandry expert, Professor John Webster described
the removal of the calf as the "most potentially distressing incident in the
life of the dairy cow". Webster points out that "the cow will submit herself
to considerable personal discomfort or risk to nourish and protect her
calf". [6] Examples of this are cows that have escaped and travelled several
miles to find their own calf after it has been sold on to another farm. [7]

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/ani.../dairy_cow.php

Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
aren't involved in its production?


see the above - cruelty and exploitation are involved in milk production (if
you could synthesise milk in a lab from non animal sources, I guess that
would be vegan, but I expect not environmentally friendly)

What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?


This question is of little practical value - we deal with the system that
DOES exist. But the answer would still be no IMO, as veganism is mainly
about stopping exploitation. As we cannot ascertain the intentions of other
animals, then it is hard to be in a position where we can reason that we are
not exploiting them, that is that they are consciously consenting as equals.

Chattel slaves go to work to avoid the pain of a beating, and cows to avoid
the pain of milk excess buildup (that their calves should relieve) - in both
cases although very different, fundamentally the situation is one of fear
and exploitation.

I submit that if they gave a cow pain killers so it didn't feel that its
udders were full, it would not turn up at the milk parlour and "volunteer"
its milk. This suggestion that cows "volunteer" milk is absurd - a confusion
of similarity and equivalents. One does not "volunteer" when one is
compelled through pain or fear of pain.

John


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:51 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
You cannot say that of all feral cows. There may be instances
where their milk can be taken from them quite easily, being such
docile beasts by nature. Would that be vegan fare?


I might agree with you somewhat on that issue. I see these Hare Krishnas
seem to look after their cows and treat them respectfully, and I suspect do
not steal the calfve smurder them and so forth. Maybe this is "less
unvegan"? That's a moooot point, mass milk production is cruel and
exploitative.

But veganism is all such a distraction from the fundamental issues of what
we are and what we should do for our own best sakes. To which I answer in
this regard, that we are not calves and have no need of cow milk, and
probably are better off without it.

John


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 12:21 AM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:

Isn't a human an animal,

We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)

so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?

Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.

incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
veganism, then work from there


Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.


incorrect


Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.

- please start with the right defiition

as stated befo
"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/


And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?

Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?


According to the original definition above yes,


There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
are vegan sources of nourishment.

but not according to the
traditional practices of vegans.


And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?

As with Islam, there is Islam the religion
and the traditions of Islamists. In practical terms vegans avoid animal
products because exploitation is usually inherent.


They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "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

They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
vegan fare while human milk is?


Already explained.


No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
is vegan fare either.

Cows do not volunteer their milk, it is all part of a
cruel system of exploitation and extermination.


It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
fare.

Distress to Young Calf & Mother


[snip]
I'm fully aware of the dairy industry and the inherent
cruelty involved in it. I want it abolished yesterday.
However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
human milk is?

Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
aren't involved in its production?


see the above - cruelty and exploitation are involved in milk production


That's very true, and it's because of this inherent
cruelty involved that I want diary parlours to close,
but that doesn't mean milk can't be sourced without
cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
as a vegan source of nourishment?

(if
you could synthesise milk in a lab from non animal sources, I guess that
would be vegan, but I expect not environmentally friendly)

What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?


This question is of little practical value


It's of enormous practical value and would have been
even more so had you not snipped out what the question
referred to.

- we deal with the system that
DOES exist. But the answer would still be no IMO, as veganism is mainly
about stopping exploitation. As we cannot ascertain the intentions of other
animals, then it is hard to be in a position where we can reason that we are
not exploiting them, that is that they are consciously consenting as equals.

Chattel slaves go to work to avoid the pain of a beating, and cows to avoid
the pain of milk excess buildup (that their calves should relieve) - in both
cases although very different, fundamentally the situation is one of fear
and exploitation.

I submit that if they gave a cow pain killers so it didn't feel that its
udders were full, it would not turn up at the milk parlour and "volunteer"
its milk. This suggestion that cows "volunteer" milk is absurd - a confusion
of similarity and equivalents. One does not "volunteer" when one is
compelled through pain or fear of pain.

John


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 12:54 AM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:

Isn't a human an animal,

We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)

so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?

Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.

incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
veganism, then work from there

Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.


incorrect


Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.

- please start with the right defiition

as stated befo
"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/


And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?


Human breast milk doesn't involve exploitation of animals.

..

They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "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


'Animal milk' here, would not include human breast milk.

..





  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 09:40 AM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:54:35 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:

Isn't a human an animal,

We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)

so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"?

Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.

incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
veganism, then work from there

Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.

incorrect


Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.

- please start with the right defiition

as stated befo
"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/


And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?


Human breast milk doesn't involve exploitation of animals.


Nevertheless, milk is not a vegan source of nourishment.
True vegans abstain from all animal products, including
milk.

They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "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


'Animal milk' here, would not include human breast milk.


Yes, it would. Humans are animals, and animal milk is a
non-vegan food source. Vegan mothers who believe their
infants are also vegan are badly mistaken.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 11:14 AM
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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").

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


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 11:54 AM
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.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 01:21 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:37 GMT, The Ghost of Pete Charest [email protected]@hell wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "John Coleman"
wrote the following in alt.food.vegan:

{snip}

if you found a dead animal that had died by accident, it would not be
unvegan to eat it, although you might be taking food away from predators -
in reality this is not a useful consideration, because the reality of animal
consumption is mass exploitation and a lot of suffering (a vegan campaign to
protest against picking up roadkills to eat is pointless because that
doesn't really happen! - but if it did, I would be more convinced that
humans are natural meat eaters)


What makes you think that humans are not natural meat eaters?


"We now know that man inhabited warm areas, allowing the
favourable conditions for a fruit regimen, which according to
the Anatomic laws, is his natural diet." Charles Darwin .
http://tinyurl.com/cxzl

Let the advocate of animal food, force himself to a decisive
experiment on its fitness, and as Plutarch recommends, tear
a living lamb with his teeth, and plunging his head into its vitals,
slake his thirst with the steaming blood; when fresh from the
deed of horror let him revert to the irresistible instincts of nature
that would rise in judgment against it, and say, Nature formed
me for such work as this. Then, and then only, would he be
consistent. Man resembles no carnivorous animal.
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 02:07 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:54:35 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

..
Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.

incorrect

Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.

- please start with the right defiition

as stated befo
"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/

And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?


Human breast milk doesn't involve exploitation of animals.


Nevertheless, milk is not a vegan source of nourishment.
True vegans abstain from all animal products, including
milk.


You're not implying that a vegan parent who breastfeeds their baby
isn't a 'true vegan', but that the baby of said vegans is 'vegetarian'?

They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "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


'Animal milk' here, would not include human breast milk.


Yes, it would. Humans are animals, and animal milk is a
non-vegan food source. Vegan mothers who believe their
infants are also vegan are badly mistaken.


I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself. But 'veganism'
does not seek to prohibit or exclude breast milk, being as
it is, the best food for babies. It was that superficial kind of
understanding that led to the baby Swinton (sp?) case. Yes?




  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 04:22 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
news

If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
sourced from other animals.


No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of animals.
The case in which human mothers breastfeed their children is not
exploitation. The case in which human mothers feed their children
dairy milk is exploitation. You can't just blanket define anyone who
comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
issues. Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dan Congs considered bitter? Rainy Tea 5 11-10-2008 03:49 AM
Have You Considered Raccoon...??? Gregory Morrow[_34_] General Cooking 1 18-01-2008 02:27 PM
why is breast feeding considered vegan? magnulus Vegan 42 07-11-2004 03:48 AM
Why is fried food considered unhealthy? Saerah General Cooking 46 31-07-2004 08:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017