Is it vegan to have children?

[PrincessPeach]

Humans aren't born anything in particular: they eat whatever their parents give them in liquid form with a nipple. You could liquify meat and mix it with milk and probably get an infant to drink it. That would make that particular infant a meat eater.

Humans are born mammals all mammals all born to drink their mothers milk please name one mammal that is born to a mother that doesn't lactate. That's correct you can't! Cows are like the "nurse moms" for humans.

That's ridiculous. Saying Breast milk isn't vegan is also dangerous. Going around claiming that risks vegan mothers choosing not to breastfeed because they're worried about it being non-vegan. And maybe avoiding formula too. Is that what you're aiming for? If so, keep at it: you're putting vegan babies at risk if their parents are naive enough to believe you.

I am very pro breast feeding you aren't understanding me. What I am saying is that humans are mammals and I do believe it's important for humans to understand some form of biology before they have children don't you think? Humans are mammals all mammals are born to drink their mothers milk.


Here is a fun biology lesson!
Oviparous animals are animals that born outside the mother and usually need little to no help from mom after birth.(males can even incubate the egg)The shell of the egg acts as the womb and the yolk provides all the nutrients for the animal to grow inside the shell of the egg.... Funny how 1st world humans only eat the eggs of a hen but would probably shun the idea down of eating frog, lizard or snakes eggs...

Mammals~ are born inside the womb and get all of their nutrients from mother while they are in utero to grow into a fully developed fetus and then once born they need the very important colostrum which boost the immune system and then mom needs to continue to milk her child so they will grow (they can't get their nutrient from anything else!)

This is a serious issue for a lot of vegan mothers who are confused about it, so fuck you for confusing them further and putting babies' health and lives at risk:
http://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-pos ... Milk-Vegan

This fear mongering about breast milk being non-vegan is comparable in insidiousness to anti-vaxx propaganda.

There's nothing non-vegan about human breast milk, willingly given, from a vegan mother.


Your argument apparently: "Babies are vegetarian therefore the thing that they eat is vegetarian and not vegan"

How am I confusing people? The question was "is it vegan to have kids" the answer is no!
There are sacrifices and pain that human animals will go through, childbirth is by far the most painful thing I've ever experienced. The process of making a baby and having a baby isn't vegan. Life isn't vegan, life is full of sacrifices and pain.
You are taking my words of "technically a baby isn't born vegan it's born vegetarian" out of context. Sure a mother may give her milk up willing but it's still a SACRIFICE, it is PAINFUL and it is TIME CONSUMING! But it does how it's rewards. I'm sorry but humans aren't some special animals above all in food chain. We are mammals born to be strick vegetarians until we are weaned.

So if vegetarians eat broccoli, that means broccoli is vegetarian, not vegan?
If a meat-eater happens to eat broccoli, that makes the broccoli meat?

That's Bullshit.

You are correct what you just said is bullshit.. Have you forgotten why vegans coined the term vegan instead of vegetarian...Because vegetarians started eating dairy and eggs.. Oh I guess that is where the term lacto and ovo vegetarian came in to place huh? Who's the idiot now.

We call a food vegan when it doesn't result in unnecessary animal suffering; broadly, most plant foods, but breast milk and willingly given human excretion (even semen; yes if it's from a vegan, that's a question a lot of people ask,) are vegan.

Wow you just called milk a plant food. In order for a food to be a plant food it would have to come from pants not from a mammal that eats plants. It came from an animal willing or not it is still not a plant food because it didn't come from a fucking plant the milk came out of a lactating mammory gland.

Or formula. Since there is no 100% vegan formula available (due to D3), if a child needs to eat formula, then formula is vegan because it's not possible or practicable to do otherwise.

Formula is great and mothers shouldn't worry about little ingridents that may not be %100 vegan. The infant needs formula or full time breast feedings the first year of life. No parent should give their children juice or store bought milks for the first year because they contain no fiber and not enough of specific nutrients.

There's a lot of pseudoscience in that. People can pretty easily switch to a plant milk directly. The effects of opioids etc. in milk are based on weak evidence.

Actually there's no pseudoscience in that. OxyContin was surprisingly named after oxytocin (for it being the pleasure hormone) I would link some references but for some very stupid reason the outbound links are turned off...? You don't have to worry about spammers putting in outbound links to the website. Google has changed there algorithm years ago and that technique no longer works. The forum will only move up in the Google ranking if the outbound links are turned on and active. Didn't I mention this like a year ago? Oh don't believe me I'm only an inbound marketing specialist and SEO optimizer...

[brimstoneSalad]

I was trying to be at least half-nice. Oh well.

You're being as dogmatic now as you were when you were advocating that fluoride nonsense years ago. Now you're just being hostile, and not addressing the arguments I made.

Please stop calling yourself a vegan: you're the worst kind. Obsessed with the dogma of the definition, and not the spirit of it.

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/d ... n-veganism

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

It is not possible and practicable for a child to NOT drink breast milk. It's also not even "exploitation" for a mother to choose to nurture her own child, and it's not doing any cruelty to another other animals, since the mother made the choice.

You've clearly reverted to being a full-fledged moron. I'm extremely disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.

Nothing you're saying has any bearing on the definition of veganism, and as long as you've been (or pretended to be) vegan, you should know that by now.

You might as well say swallowing your own saliva isn't vegan because it's an animal product. Yes, you are that much of an idiot.

So congratulations for being the biggest idiot on the forum in a year. So big of an idiot, in fact, you forced me to update the forum rules to account for this level of dishonesty and/or trollish stupidity.

1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.
Discussion is also founded upon correct usage of words. The forum language is English, and while it's fine to discuss definitions, assertively twisting words beyond their reasonable definition to troll, like saying "Saliva is an animal product, if you swallow your own saliva you're not vegan!" is not acceptable.

This is your first and final warning. Stop. It.

Humans aren't born anything in particular: they eat whatever their parents give them in liquid form with a nipple. You could liquify meat and mix it with milk and probably get an infant to drink it. That would make that particular infant a meat eater.

Humans are born mammals all mammals all born to drink their mothers milk please name one mammal that is born to a mother that doesn't lactate. That's correct you can't! Cows are like the "nurse moms" for humans.

It's irrelevant what they naturally do. This is an appeal to nature fallacy.

A cat (naturally an obligate carnivore) can be a vegetarian or at least dietary vegan if fed as such (with a carefully formulated diet), regardless of what it would naturally eat.
Human breast milk freely given from a vegan mother, however, is unquestionably vegan.

I am very pro breast feeding you aren't understanding me. What I am saying is that humans are mammals and I do believe it's important for humans to understand some form of biology before they have children don't you think? Humans are mammals all mammals are born to drink their mothers milk.

And yet most do not, and do not understand veganism (you also clearly do not).
Whatever they are "born to drink", freely given human breast milk for human babies from a vegan mother is vegan. It is not the product of animal cruelty or exploitation, and it's not really possible and practicable for the baby not to drink it, unless you are suggesting it's better for them to drink formula.

How am I confusing people? The question was "is it vegan to have kids" the answer is no!
There are sacrifices and pain that human animals will go through, childbirth is by far the most painful thing I've ever experienced. The process of making a baby and having a baby isn't vegan. Life isn't vegan, life is full of sacrifices and pain.

Choosing to go through pain is vegan: making another person go through pain unwillingly is not vegan.
If it was painful for you to have a child, that's because you were being an idiot. You should have had an epidural. That was your fault.
Either way, conception and birth was perfectly vegan. The definition of "vegan" doesn't exclude pain we choose to go through to get a greater reward. Suicide isn't even broadly considered non-vegan (that is at least a more sensible discussion).

The question in this thread is whether having children at all -- bringing more people into the world -- is vegan because of the consequences of life.
This is the argument antinatalists make, which is significantly more sophisticated than your appeal to a bizarrely ignorant definition of veganism you made up.

Have you forgotten why vegans coined the term vegan instead of vegetarian...Because vegetarians started eating dairy and eggs.. Oh I guess that is where the term lacto and ovo vegetarian came in to place huh? Who's the idiot now.

Still you.
I know very well the definition. Now start using it, and begin by reading the whole thing and stop twisting it to your ends.

You have been warned.

We call a food vegan when it doesn't result in unnecessary animal suffering; broadly, most plant foods, but breast milk and willingly given human excretion (even semen; yes if it's from a vegan, that's a question a lot of people ask,) are vegan.

Wow you just called milk a plant food. In order for a food to be a plant food it would have to come from pants not from a mammal that eats plants. It came from an animal willing or not it is still not a plant food because it didn't come from a fucking plant the milk came out of a lactating mammory gland.

I obviously did no such thing if you read what I wrote.

No parent should give their children juice or store bought milks for the first year because they contain no fiber and not enough of specific nutrients.

But according to your claims, that would be the only vegan option -- to kill a child by feeding it juice. So fuck you for that. How many babies do you think you've killed so far by advocating this bullshit? You're a terrible person for putting out this harmful idea that breast milk isn't vegan.

Breast milk, from a vegan mother, willingly given, is vegan. No less so than swallowing your own saliva. End of story. I'm not going to spend more time discussing something that should be obvious to anybody with two braincells to rub together who can read the definition of veganism.

This thread is about antinatalism. If you are not an antinatalist, or you are not going to make an argument about it, then go elsewhere. This is not a place for you to rant, ignore arguments (and definitions), contradict people with ignorant bullshit, and try to look intelligent by picking a fight with the biggest kid you can find.

Actually there's no pseudoscience in that. OxyContin was surprisingly named after oxytocin (for it being the pleasure hormone) I would link some references but for some very stupid reason the outbound links are turned off...? You don't have to worry about spammers putting in outbound links to the website. Google has changed there algorithm years ago and that technique no longer works. The forum will only move up in the Google ranking if the outbound links are turned on and active. Didn't I mention this like a year ago? Oh don't believe me I'm only an inbound marketing specialist and SEO optimizer...

I don't believe you. At this point I trust neither in your competence nor your honesty.

You can post a link, it just won't be parsed. If you want to talk about the supposed addictiveness of dairy, then start a new thread about it.

[EquALLity]

Welcome back PrincessPeach, it's been so long since you've posted here.

I've been following this discussion, and PP, are you saying breast feeding isn't vegan because it involves an animal product?

Based on what you've been saying, it seems like you're saying it technically isn't vegan but that there's nothing immoral about it.

I don't see why that would be dogmatic or so outrageous (you're not condemning it or telling people not to breastfeed; you're just saying it doesn't technically fit a definition), but I think it's a potentially harmful message to spread because people could easily misunderstand it.
Why should we define veganism to mean simply not using animal products when what we really care about is morality? As long as something doesn't cause harm, therefore, it should be vegan.

Also, with what you were saying about having kids to be non-vegan because of harm done to the mother:
1) This contradicts the idea that anything not involving animal products is vegan, because you're saying it's non-vegan due to harm instead. Unless you're saying something is only vegan if it doesn't have animal products and doesn't cause harm (both)?
2) It may be hard for the mother, but if she consents, what is the problem?

[PrincessPeach]

Dairy isn't vegan. I guess that makes me an idiot? I suppose so for going of topic. Im not trying to harm anyone and I'm not implying they shouldn't breastfeed in fact I am active member in my local women's breast feeding support group. I support all women to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is seen as taboo in our society and I've been approached and ridiculed in public for openly breastfeeding. The dogma is strong because so many woman chose not to breastfeed that's why we exploit primarily cows and goats for their milk because it is a painful and tiring process that most woman chose not to go through! Im sorry but in order for any woman to lactate they first have to birth a child give it the colostrum until the milk flow comes in. Hormones are altered so milk can be produced. Milk contains lactic acid which is not found in human spit or semen only in dairy products. There is a reason moms get maternal leave and reasons why the First Lady made it mandatory for woman who are breastfeeding and working to have pump breaks and she made it legal to breastfeed anywhere in public. Yes moms where getting arrested for publicly breastfeeding. Having kids isn't vegan because they're animals! Doesn't mean it is wrong to have kids or that you can't raise them vegan.
On the note of childbirth being painful, I took IV pain medication every two hours instead of an epidural because epidurals completely demobilize you and I like to be in control I didn't want to be stuck in my hospital bed for hours. Also epidurals increase the chance of a c section which I didn't want either. You can't feel your legs on the epidural but you can still feel the contractions and the contractions are what hurts.

[EquALLity]

^I think that you're just defining veganism in a counterproductive way. See my post.

[brimstoneSalad]

Dairy isn't vegan. I guess that makes me an idiot?

Breast milk is not generally considered dairy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_product At no point does the word "breast" appear, and "human" only appears in relation to formula.

Thinking human breast milk is not vegan makes you an idiot, yes. This is not a controversial subject in the vegan community, and breast milk is also widely regarded as vegan by non-vegans as well.

https://www.quora.com/Do-vegans-breast- ... eir-babies
Unanimous agreement that breast milk is vegan.
http://www.vegfamily.com/vegan-view/bre ... ormula.htm

People actually asked me this when I was pregnant and vegan, whether I would breastfeed or not and if that was vegan! I think anyone who would ask this question is stupi[d] and ignorant,

Pretty much. And a self proclaimed vegan (of how many years?) has even less of an excuse for that stupidity.

You were warned to stop twisting the definition of vegan. You just had to keep going.

Im not trying to harm anyone

Neither was Mao during the "great leap forward" when millions of people starved due to the short sighted policies he implemented.

I'm telling you that what you're saying is wrong and dangerous: But you don't care how many babies die because of your ignorant words, because you're too caught up in your own pride.

Milk contains lactic acid which is not found in human spit or semen only in dairy products.

http://www.cdrfoodlab.com/news/lactic-a ... -test.html

The presence of lactic acid or lactate in milk is due to the fermentation of lactose caused mainly by lactic bacteria. Generally speaking, just-milked milk does not contain lactic acid, but this increases after a while and its concentration is closely correlated to the total bacterial charge.

The same appears to hold for saliva, where it's the product of bacteria, and possibly from fructolysis in semen from the sperm using fructose for energy.
Either way, lactic acid has nothing to do with whether something is vegan or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid_fermentation
Even if it weren't primarily a product of microbial fermentation, no common molecule is inherently non-vegan.

because epidurals completely demobilize you and I like to be in control I didn't want to be stuck in my hospital bed for hours.

False: it doesn't completely demobilize you. Although it may make you wobbly or make it hard to walk after, and the hospital might not let you for fear of you falling.

However:

http://www.skepticalob.com/2012/03/epid ... ering.html

Also epidurals increase the chance of a c section which I didn't want either. You can't feel your legs on the epidural but you can still feel the contractions and the contractions are what hurts.

False and False.

Have you learned nothing over the years? Do you ever bother to fact check anything you say? Clearly not.

http://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom ... dural-myth

Myth: Epidurals can slow down labor or increase the risk of having a cesarean section (C-section).

Fact: There is no credible evidence that an epidural slows down labor or increases your risk of having a C-section. If a woman has a C-section, other factors usually are at play, including having a very large baby or slow progression of labor due to other issues. In fact, there is evidence that epidurals can speed the first stage of labor for some women.

Myth: An epidural can interfere with the birth experience.

Fact: Some women express fear that their legs will be numb and they won’t be able to walk, feel a contraction or push properly. In fact, your legs should not be so numb that you do not feel them. You may be able to walk after an epidural, depending on the hospital’s policy; however, walking generally is not recommended immediately after the epidural is placed. Epidural procedures have improved significantly in the last 20 years, and you’ll receive enough medication to relieve the pain without taking away your ability to move. Furthermore, the epidural medications will not cause you to be groggy or tired. In other words, you’ll be able to feel contractions – they just won’t hurt – and you’ll be able to push effectively.

Maybe you bought into the lies from Lamaze propagandists:
http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/11/the- ... ition.html

You've been had. Maybe it's hard to admit it. Or maybe you just wanted hard drugs and had to rationalize it by putting down epidurals. Whatever your reasons, stop spreading these myths, if anything isn't vegan here, it's your ignorance: you're harming others.

[brimstoneSalad]

^I think that you're just defining veganism in a counterproductive way. See my post.

Unfortunately I had to ban her ("until further notice") after she completely ignored the warning.

It's like somebody coming in and dogmatically claiming that nobody can be vegan because saliva is an animal product.
That kind of nonsense isn't even something we can discuss, since it's somebody blatantly ignoring the definition of vegan: it's a form of fundamental dishonesty that makes discussion meaningless, and that's aside from any deontological or consequential differences people may have.
Vegan81vzla isn't even that bad, and that's saying something (he's the only other user I imagine might end up getting banned under the new rule addendum).

The only people I've seen be that stupid about veganism before were really hostile and immature carnists, and even that is rare.

[EquALLity]

^I think that you're just defining veganism in a counterproductive way. See my post.

Unfortunately I had to ban her ("until further notice") after she completely ignored the warning.

It's like somebody coming in and dogmatically claiming that nobody can be vegan because saliva is an animal product.
That kind of nonsense isn't even something we can discuss, since it's somebody blatantly ignoring the definition of vegan: it's a form of fundamental dishonesty that makes discussion meaningless, and that's aside from any deontological or consequential differences people may have.
Vegan81vzla isn't even that bad, and that's saying something (he's the only other user I imagine might end up getting banned under the new rule addendum).

The only people I've seen be that stupid about veganism before were really hostile and immature carnists, and even that is rare.

What do you mean 'until further notice'?

I don't think she's being dishonest or dogmatic; I think she's just defining veganism wrong.
Dogmatic would be saying that "because breast milk isn't vegan, it's wrong to give it to your children".
Dishonest would be saying that "veganism is wrong because it means mothers can't breastfeed".

PrincessPeach isn't doing anything like that; she's just saying that she doesn't think breast milk is technically vegan. She's not saying that that makes it wrong or veganism in general bad. She just has a misconception about the definition.

[brimstoneSalad]

She just has a misconception about the definition.

I don't think so. An innocent misconception would have been corrected easily several posts ago.

I quoted the definition to her. She knows how it's defined, she just chooses to use her own definition that she made up so she can tell everybody else they're wrong based on this arbitrary special definition she has created. That's dishonest, and it's dogmatic (the nature of her special definition).

She knows the overwhelming majority of vegans agree human breast milk (willingly given, etc.) is vegan, she knows the "practicable and possible" part of the definition, but she ignores all of that because she has to be right and her ego has gotten the better of her (as it often does).
She was not engaging in sensible discussion about the definition, just acting like a broken record in repeating the claim dogmatically.

What do you mean 'until further notice'?

I guess until we, as a community, decide otherwise.

She's a bottomless pit of pseudoscience and harmful myths. She started with the fluoride thing, but she just hasn't learned anything since then, and she's still nothing but arrogance and ignorance personified.

IMO, it's fair to keep her banned until she apologizes and makes it clear that she understands why breast milk is vegan and will no longer claim that it isn't.

I don't think she's being dishonest or dogmatic; I think she's just defining veganism wrong.

Using a word so wildly incorrectly is a form of dishonesty: she should know better than to define veganism like that. And the definition she's using is dogmatic: she made no attempt to discuss the definition, she merely lectured and made bald assertions.

PrincessPeach isn't doing anything like that; she's just saying that she doesn't think breast milk is technically vegan. She's not saying that that makes it wrong or veganism in general bad.

That would make veganism wrong. And functionally impossible, because saliva would be non-vegan too. Not vegan to kiss. Not vegan to swallow (your own spit). And anything and everything you bought at the store would be non-vegan, because it's a product of human labor.

The "possible and practicable" parts aren't just in the definition for decoration, and neither does the obvious spirit of the definition have anything to do with products of human beings made and given willingly, without harmful exploitation, provided the components are vegan.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

How do we determine the definition of words as a forum? Consensus, dictionary definition, and / or as defined by the coiner?