Yeah, but they WEREN’T very good at it, and that’s why their kid was malnourished. The fact that they were vegans is likely not really of that much consequence here. They probably would have done some real damage to the child even if they ate faces.
I have no idea what your point is. In the thread you’re reading did someone say this was indicative of vegans in general. The closest anyone has come to saying anything bad about vegans at all was DrDeth, and his comment fell well short of the kind of stuff in your post.
Ok, granted for the sake of this arguement that “factory farms” treat animals in a “not nice” manner, and thus dudes concerned with “animal rights” would want to avoid milk, eggs & honey from such. Ok. However, one could buy such products from an “animal freindly” farm, or even raise the critters themselves, thus that argument is moot, right? One could raise a dairy cow or a goat, or chickens such that they were raised in such comfort that many humans on the planet would envy- thus then what is the objection? (In fact are there not such farms? Or beekeepers?)
Sure, SOME (maybe even most) animals are “exploited”, but are not many humans? There are humans in Africa & elsewhere living in horrid inhuman conditions of slavery- thus- should “vegans” also not avoid “breast milk”? Humans are animals, thus human milk is an animal product. Thus if the benchmark is that SOME of the producing creatures are exploited, thus we must avoid all products from such creatures- breastmilk is out- or am I missing something?
So is it “animal products are wrong” or is it “products from mistreated & exploited animals are wrong”? If the first- then breastmilk is right out. If the second, then milk & such from animals raised in a “happy farm” would be fine.
Yosemtite- the point is whether or not some radical nutcake claims their beliefs caused them to do this. Thus, in the present case, they claimed their vegan views caused them to starve their kid. If you kill someone, who just happens to be Jewish- then you are not nessesarily a “racist”. But if you kill them BECAUSE they are Jewish, as you are a Nazi- they you are also a racist murderer. And the headline can say “Nazi murders Jew”- even if the American Nazi party claims that such violence is not part of it’s tenents. So the headline “Vegans starve child” is similarly legit. Perhaps alarmist, sure, but that’s how they sell newspapers, you know.
Now, what Vegans should do is point out that these nutcakes are not typical- and it would seem so, based upon what has been said here. However, since it would seem like vegans themselves are not “typical” of vegetarianism are a whole- what is “typical”?
I am not knocking those who choose to eat as they wish. Please- do so. But- you have no right to endanger your child by forcing them into such a diet. And I do mean “endanger”. Maybe a well balanced diet including meat & dairy MIGHT be slightly healthier for a baby than a similarly well balanced vegan diet. (or not). But it is also as likely that the c"ows milk, processed baby food & formula" baby diet isn’t optimal either. “Optimal” is not nessesary, although it would be nice. “Not dangerous” is nessesary for your infants. This seems to be an unique case, however, I see nothing to indicate that it is part of some sort of pattern.
I did see one pattern, the nutcake parents in this case also refused to have their children immunized. We have discussed this here, and it would seem like this is a belief which is not all that rare- and is very dangerous not only for their children, but for other children they come in contact with. Thus, parents who do so refuse (except those few who have children with rare syndroms, or those parents who avoid just a couple of immunizations based upon careful thought & consultation with their MD) ARE “endangering” their children- and ours too. Thees “nutcakes” are growing every day, mostly due to spreading ignorance & alarmist theories.
DrDeth, first, I’m not a vegan, though I’ve tried in the past to be a vegan.
THere’s definitely such thing as a “typical” vegan. As I said above, most vegans I’ve known are in it primarily for ethical reasons. As such, if and when they believe that an animal product was derived humanely, they might eat it. Some will even eat animal products if they feel that their consumption of them won’t support agribusiness – if a friend is going to throw away half of their Egg McMuffin, these so-called “freegans” have no problem eating it.
Thing is, if you approach veganism from a strong animal rights (as opposed to animal welfare) perspective, it’s very difficult to produce animal products in a way that doesn’t result in mistreating the animals. Although I’ve known hippy farming vegans aplenty, I’ve never known any who kept animals. Killing animals is an inescapable aspect of animal husbandry.
Breastfeeding, obviously, doesn’t fall under “animal husbandry.” I’ve known lots of vegans, and they didn’t object to swapping spit or oral sex, either – in fact, a popular vegan bumper sticker claims that “VEGANS TASTE BETTER,” a reference to oral sex.
Daniel
Why do you say “killing animals is an inescapavle aspect of animal husbandry”? You don’t have to kill a milk cow to get milk, nor a laying hen to get eggs. Nor do you have to kill any bees to get honey. Of course, all animals - INCLUDING HUMANS- die some day, so I guess that “death is an inescapable aspect…”, but it is so of all living things.
Let us say you had a nanny goat. You raised her better than some dudes raise their own kids. She was pampered, well treated, and when she met a natural end of old age. Or you had a couple of female ducks, who you treated as pets, but they also gave eggs(in fact, my friend did exactly this, the ducks loved him, and would follow him around, quacking with excitement. They died of natural causes after a long full happy life). So how would using the milk from the goat (which would have to be milked) or the eggs from the ducks be “mistreating” the animals? Should you just let the eggs rot?
Like I said- unless you also say that keeping pets is “mistrating the animals”, then animals can certainly be raised in a humane manner. What is “unethical” about using their by-products? It would seem that allowing such to go to waste would be the unethical thing.
As to your first point, not all of us are in a position to live on a farm. I think both can be viable options: if you want to (and can do it), raise your own animals. If you can’t, or don’t feel right, merely avoid animal products. As long as it’s adults we’re talking about, who’s to say?
For your second point… well, that’s just silly. It’s not like I’m keeping a woman slave in a barn out behind my house and milking her. Or ordering away to some company that keeps women against their will, or in bad conditions, and pumps their breastmilk for consumer consumption. How in the hell is it comparable to me, a free woman, breastfeeding my own baby with my own breastmilk, willingly?
Well, you’re right- is IS silly. Not my point but theirs. Theirs seems to be that some animals somewhere are mistreated (granted), thus NO animal products are OK for use. It is their logical inconsistency, not mine.
Sure, I know that damn few of us get to live on farms- but I believe many/some organic farms are animal freindly & humane.
My point is- you can have it one way or t’other. Either ALL animal products are a “no-no”, in which case human breast milk is also wrong (humans are animals, you know)- and this thus deprives a baby of the best source of nutrition. OR only animal products from “mistreated” animals are a “no-no”, thus such products from animals that are treated humanely would not be.
DrDeth, few people are logically consistant. Most people will eat cows, but will not eat kittens. Why? Is killing a cow all that different from killing a kitten? Not really. But we all do what we are comfortable with.
I am vegetarian. I’ll outright admit that my vegetarian views are inconsistant. The do not reflect a coherent well thought out philosophy. But you know what? That’s okay. I feed myself with whatever I think is the best thing to feed myself with. I’m making lunch, not writing a dissertation. There is no requirement that I have a consistant and coherent justification for what I do. Few of us do.
Err, I say it because I’ve worked on a small organic farm, and I’ve studied small farming practices, and I’ve known a lot of small farmers.
If you’ll read what I wrote carefully, you’ll note that I said, “Milk is generally avoided because even the best dairies sell male calves for veal or beef: it’s economically impossible to produce milk for market and not slaughter the males.” This is an important point that may have gotten lost.
There are, for example, Krishna Consciousness farms that raise dairy cattle without slaughtering the male calves. They’re willing to spend a lot of money on their cows in order to do this, however: I’ve never heard of a US dairy farm that produced milk for sale that didn’t slaughter the males.
Similarly, even free-ranging eggs are generally produced by flocks that don’t have as much space to roam as chickens naturally prefer, and sick members of the flock are generally culled rather than treated.
It is possible, again, to raise chickens in ideal circumstances, and most AR folks I know would be willing to eat eggs from such hens. But, and I repeat myself, “It’s very difficult to produce animal products in a way that doesn’t result in mistreating the animals.”
Not impossible. Very difficult.
I’d love to see some examples of specific commercial organic farms that would satisfy the treatment criteria of animal rights advocates. I don’t believe they exist.
There are farms that satisfy PETA’s stopgap criteria, of course, but PETA freely admits that they consider their criteria for (e.g.) Mcdonald’s Beef Cattle to be incremental measures, better than the animals’ previous treatment but far worse than what an AR ethic demands.
You mischaracterize the AR argument when you say their point “seems to be that some animals somewhere are mistreated (granted), thus NO animal products are OK for use.” Instead, the argument is that virtually all animals involved in animal husbandry are mistreated to some degree.
Daniel
I once knew a couple in which the female half was vegan, and the male half was not. Unfortunately, the female half was crazy and the male half entirely self-absorbed. Not only were their children on a vegan diet, but they were not vaccinated, and probably rarely saw a doctor. So I don’t know that the parents in the OP would have taken their child to a doctor any sooner, or listened to the doctor if they had. It’s not so much that they’re vegans, it’s… how do I put this… They’re so convinced that they are doing absolutely the right thing that they wouldn’t trust medical professionals. They’d think that the system is trying to hold them back.
A question for the vegans here: do you think your children should be brought up vegan, or be given the right to choose in their own time? I’m just curious.
Indeed, if you have a whole herd of beef, then yes, I will concede it is expensive to raise the males, too. Unless you turn them into oxen, and use them for draft animals, which used to be done.
But one doesn’t have to have a whole herd. I can have
just
one
cow.
Which I treat very nicely, like my own children, and since it never gives birth again, I don’t have to worry about what to do with many offspring. Thus, it is not “economically impossible” to do so. (Also, can’t they use artifical insemination, or even cloning to get just females?) And, if the “Krishna” farms do so- even tho they perhaps have a lower profit margin- it again isn’t “impossible”. “You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
In fact, it could make good economic sense. If “organic milk without hormones & such” can be sold at a higher price for those who want such a product, i can’t see why there wouldn’t be a market for “ethically” farmed dairy products. Well yes, i could, since as sven pointed out, the beliefs aren’t consistant.
Also, like I said- much more easily, you could gather honey without killing bees.
And Sven? Like I pointed out- there is a difference. We made a “contract” with dogs & cats many many years ago to have them as pets & helpers- we did this by breeding them as such. Thus, eating a kitten is not the same as eating a cow- which species was always intended for the dinner table- at least at some time.
Regarding keeping just one cow
I am not, and have never been, involved with any phase of farming, but AFAIK animals that have never given birth do not lactate. So you’d have to breed the cow at least once. How long after that would the cow continue to produce milk? Forever? Or do you have to repeat the process from time to time?
BTW, I agree that the parents in this case were negligent and from what I have read, ignorant. I cannot imagine how breast-feeding one’s own child could be in any way immoral. I’m an omnivore, but if another adult wants to omit animal products from his diet, well fine. Leaves more steaks for me. But it is immoral to starve a child that way. If the mother can’t breastfeed, it cannot be immoral to deprive a few soybeans of life in order to nourish the child!
Not the word “again” after “…it never gives birth…”. I think it can be done nowadays with hormones & such, though.
I will admit to having a prejudice against vegetarians in general and vegans in particular, but only because I recognize that humans are both predators and omnivores, and it seems dumb to me to avoid half of your “natural” diet. I also have major problems with the animal rights mentality, since, for me, an animal has to demonstrate cognition and sentience in order to have “rights”.
Those are just my standards, prejudices and opinions, though. I fully respect the rights of vegetarians and vegans to eat as they choose, provided they don’t go off on me for eating eggs, sausage and steak for breakfast or a salad with boiled egg and crumbled egg in it. Each to their own.
However, this case is not about veganism or any other philosophy or ethical guideline. It is about the cruel, reckless and wanton abuse of another human being put under the care of these two idiots, and I would have loved to see them both get life without, instead of 25 on the charges.
Yes, humans are animals, but we’re talking about free will and consent. A woman choosing to breastfeed her child is not harming any animals, including humans!
“Not my point but theirs.” To whom do you refer to by saying “theirs”? The particular parents discussed in the OP, or vegans in general? Because if you are trying to say it’s a general vegan opinion, I’d like to point out to you it is not. I am a former vegan and I’m telling you yet again that I support breastfeeding. Out of the vegetarians and vegans I’ve known, none have felt that breastmilk is animal abuse. I feel rediculous having to type that… again!
If I am a free woman consenting to give my baby my breastmilk that was made specifically for my child, that has NO resemblance to what happens to farm animals or human slaves.
Are you being willfully ignorant here? How can you say a vegan mother choosing to nurse a baby is contrary to her opinion of avoiding animal products due to mistreatment?
I think it can’t, but your belief that it can explains why we seemed to be talking past one another. Integral to dairy farming, and certainly to organic dairy farming, is that the dairy animals must be kept in a constant state of either lactation or pregnancy for the farm to remain profitable. If you have just one cow, she’ll quit lactating after a few months (I worked with dairy goats, and it was long enough ago that I don’t even remember their lactation period). If you want more milk, you gotta put her out to stud again, so that she’ll get pregnant and have another child or two.
FallenAngel, I think you misunderstand animal rights arguments, but as you say,
This whole biz about the philosophy of veganism and AR is a sidetrack, except inasmuch as it demonstrates that these yahoos are far outside of the AR and veganism movements. I’d bet very good money that any survey of vegans and AR folks finds more, not less, support for breastfeeding than amongst the general population.
Daniel
DrDeth and FallenAngel – have to confess you are on my page. I simply can’t understand why animal products, freely-given (like wild bee honey) are unacceptable to vegans. As I said before, it’s like refusing to listen to birdsong.
I know vegans who call their pets “companions.” I think of my dogs the same way, but – what if I were blind or in some other way disabled – could a vegan grant me the right to have a service dog? or monkey? Is their service given with any kind of consent humans recognize?
What if everyone became vegan? What would happen to the animals that are now kept for food purposes? Surely Texas ranchers wouldn’t be willing to keep hundreds of heads of cattle as “companions.”
I’m truly torn. A vegetarian, I am repulsed by meat, but life is so complex without having to worry about the glue someone put on the picture their child drew for me – or the medical breakthrough that will save a life. Let’s keep talking.
summerbreeze, first you have to realize that they are not freely given, like birdsong, but rather not strongly resisted, like stealing from someone who isn’t home. Oh, and if the Vegan’s were to take over I am sure they would set the cows up in some nice single-sex pastureland to live out their lives. It would be expensive for a while, but after a generation there would be no more problem.
What problem? The fact that humans eat meat? I know at my age I don’t need milk to survive, therefore I don’t drink milk. I get calcium otherways. But a baby needs mothers milk, if not from the teat, from the bottle. Whats wrong with a mother that won’t give her own child nourishment? This woman needed a wet nurse. And a Fanny Farmer Cookbook!
summerbreeze, to add to this, why do you think honeybees have stingers?
I had honey on my toast this morning, don’t get me wrong. But it was taken from the bees by force. If I were an animal-rights advocate, I wouldn’t eat honey.
Daniel