quote:

---

from article on vegan parents' trial
A VEGAN couple were sentenced to life in a US jail yesterday for the murder of their malnourished six-week-old son, who weighed just 1.6kg when he died.

---

quote:

---

"These parents lied about what they fed him," prosecutor Chuck Boring told the jury.

"He just was not fed enough. They're not vegans. They're baby-killers.

---

What a bunch of bullshit. Your thread title is assinine, Mark, and your stupid, knee-jerk reaction is offensive.

What these people did was criminal. Not vegan. They fed the kid soy milk and apple-juice when there are perfectly healthy soy-based formulas and breast milk to choose from. I have never EVER met a vegan, or even HEARD of a vegan, who was against breast-feeding. In fact, that's the argument vegans often use for not drinking cow's milk: that cow milk is for BABY COWS, not humans. And breast milk is for baby humans.

You find me any, ANY vegan web site that advocates that breast milk is not vegan. If you can't find one, then I think you should change your stupid fucking thread title. Actually, I think you should change it anyhow, since it's in no way descriptive of what this story is about.

In all seriousness though, I would not want a kid on a vegan diet, and I'd hold it against parents who did. A baby is not an adult and hence has different needs and needs a diverse natural diet, and since multivitamins are not fully understood then forget about it. Soya by the way has phytoestrogens in it.

First of all, I'm sure a diverse vegan diet is better than the conventional diet of Kentucky Fried Chicken and Coca Cola. And I'd definitely assume that growth hormone beef is as bad or worse than phytoestrogen-filled soya. Overall I find in that article an overreliance on soya. On the fats angles, there are some reports that eating too many nuts during pregnancy might encourage later allergies.

So overall, more diverse and healthy than the average american diet it seems, but still seems lacking to me.

I admit I'm talking out of my ass as I have not been with a pregnant woman (let alone been one).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Veganism for pregnant women and babies

---

There are other factors to consider here too. Were they weatlhy enough to afford special vegan formulas, or did they have to make due with what was available to them to live up to their vegan ideal? Could they afford medical care (remember, this is the States)? Was the mother physically able to breastfeed (not all mothers are)? Were they really just negligent parents (perhaps even negligent meat eating parents) who intentionally starved their child and then concocted the vegan story to try to avoid a guilty plea? I don't think so, but the prosecution seemed to go in that direction:

quote:

---

from the news story:
But prosecutors convinced the jury that the couple intentionally neglected and underfed the child and then tried to use the lifestyle as a shield for their actions.

---

Disclaimer: I don't know the specifics of the case, beyond what I read in this article. Perhaps they were wealthy, and could have afforded Baby's Organic Healthy Vegan Formula (note, I made that up -- Google laughed at me when I tried various searches for such a thing).

Well, time to eat. Do I have red lentil curried soup with brown rice? Mushroom and cheese omelette? Hmm. Actually, I think I'll have azuki beans with lotus seeds and lotus root, with dried daikon and kombu, and some fu and broccoli tamari broth, with bancha tea.....nuts, I'm out of daikon and kombu, and low on lotus root. And the health food store is closed now. Well, guess I'll order a double cheese veggie pizza. Yummers!

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: mark_alfred ]

What's your point?

Poor people survive every day without killing their kids. Vegan parents survive every day without killing their kids.

This story has nothing to do with them being supposedly "vegan" and everything to do with them being incompetent and stupid. If your kid is dying and crying all the time, you fucking well rob a bank if that's what you have to do to go to a doctor. You don't starve them on apple juice and soy milk until they're dead. There's no vegan site ANYWHERE that says it's okay to feed a baby soy milk and apple juice. There is no way they could claim to be sticking to an ideology.

They were criminally ignorant and negligent and they killed a baby in the process. Lots of cases of carcass-eaters who do similar things to their babies.

Furthermore, your stupid thread title is misleading, and your comments after posting the article are disingenuous and insulting.

"Oh golly, I thought maybe I was going to try being vegan but golly gosh gee, now that I know that vegans kill babies, I guess I'd better not! Golly, who knew? Those big bad vegans! Evil! Evil!"

And then you go on in your second post to mock vegan food. Yeah, I'm just SO sure you were all ready to go out and try to be vegan for a while. Disingenuous trolling.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

"These parents lied about what they fed him," prosecutor Chuck Boring told the jury.

"He just was not fed enough. They're not vegans. They're baby-killers.

"Think about how long they had to listen to his screams and hollers."

Thomas, the father, hung his head and almost collapsed when he and his wife were convicted on May 2.

They were found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children.

---

Does anyone think this sentence somehow solves anything? All this does is compound the tragedy. And, who pays any attention to anything a flippin' prosecutor says. It is their JOB to give the state line and to proceed with certainty that the accused is guilty and must be punished. That kind of zeal to inflict wrath more closely approximates evil than even the world's worst case of clueless parenting. I don't know anything about these parents but I can't believe that justice has been done here.

As for vegan diets, I know plenty of healthy people that adhere to strict veganism, but I'm allergic to soy.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Vegan food is cheaper than meat and dairy. And yes, formula is expensive. Just like milk-based formula is more expensive than plain milk, soy-based formula is more expensive than soy milk. Your baby will die if you feed it plain milk and apple juice as well.

What's your point?

Poor people survive every day without killing their kids. Vegan parents survive every day without killing their kids.

This story has nothing to do with them being supposedly "vegan" and everything to do with them being incompetent and stupid. If your kid is dying and crying all the time, you fucking well rob a bank if that's what you have to do to go to a doctor. You don't starve them on apple juice and soy milk until they're dead. There's no vegan site ANYWHERE that says it's okay to feed a baby soy milk and apple juice. There is no way they could claim to be sticking to an ideology.

They were criminally ignorant and negligent and they killed a baby in the process. Lots of cases of carcass-eaters who do similar things to their babies.

Furthermore, your stupid thread title is misleading, and your comments after posting the article are disingenuous and insulting.

"Oh golly, I thought maybe I was going to try being vegan but golly gosh gee, now that I know that vegans kill babies, I guess I'd better not! Golly, who knew? Those big bad vegans! Evil! Evil!"

And then you go on in your second post to mock vegan food. Yeah, I'm just SO sure you were all ready to go out and try to be vegan for a while. Disingenuous trolling.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

Nitpick: (sorry)

In my observations of the northeast, the midwest, BC and Quebec, dairy in Canada is twice as epensive as dairy in the USA. 2 litres of milk will be 1.75 for example, not 3.75 like here. And I'm told by american friends produce is marginally cheaper here. Keep that in mind.

As for calories, meat and dairy are cheaper than avocados, nuts, and oils. (calories from fats)

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:

Does anyone think this sentence somehow solves anything? All this does is compound the tragedy. And, who pays any attention to anything a flippin' prosecutor says. It is their JOB to give the state line and to proceed with certainty that the accused is guilty and must be punished. That kind of zeal to inflict wrath more closely approximates evil than even the world's worst case of clueless parenting. I don't know anything about these parents but I can't believe that justice has been done here.

As for vegan diets, I know plenty of healthy people that adhere to strict veganism, but I'm allergic to soy.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:

As for vegan diets, I know plenty of healthy people that adhere to strict veganism, but I'm allergic to soy.

---

quote:

---

mark_alfred:
However, the news story did give me some pause for thought about blindly following any ideology (in this case, improperly following).

---

Which really what it is all about. Ignorance and/or stupidity in regards to how they were understanding veganism.

It has been said that they were not vegans. Now, if a person doesn't eat any animal products, as these two apparently practiced, do they qualify as vegetarians or vegans, or is there some other criteria that must also apply? If so, when it came to dietary choices, what were they?

If veganism is the completed abstinence from animal products, that leaves out any animal milk, human or otherwise unless one wants to argue that milk from one's natural mother is no different from the nourishment one was receiving when still in the womb.

If veganism is based on not exploiting animals that raises the issue of what constitutes exploitation and what about using animal products that are not a result of exploitation (once what exploitation is is determined).

If exploitation is an issue, why would we stop at animals? Plants are exploited too, especially if we terminate their life cycle.

A totally no exploitative diet would only include those things which were produced to be eaten in the first place, fruit and milk.

Of course one could take the comprehensive view that in the cycle of life everything naturally exists to feed something else. This, then, changes the argument from what kind of stuff we eat to how it was obtained for eating.

As for vegan wine, which Michelle mentioned earlier, what makes some wine non vegan is the the type of material used to clarify it. One would probably face the same issue in some vinegars. Then, of course, there is also the problem of animal parts and by-products that are used to fertilized the soil in which vineyards and other plants are grown. Things that might be perfectly organic and get a pass in an organic rating.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
If veganism is the completed abstinence from animal products, that leaves out any animal milk, human or otherwise unless one wants to argue that milk from one's natural mother is no different from the nourishment one was receiving when still in the womb.

---

With all due respect, this paragraph shows that you know dick about what being a vegan means.

Again, show me even ONE reputable (or heck, even non-reputable) vegan web site where they say breast milk isn't vegan. Go ahead. Try and find one. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Maybe you should leave the preaching about what "vegan" means to people who have half a clue. It certainly would be nice for those of us who adhere to this philosophy not to be told by a bunch of meat-eaters what veganism "really" is. Do a google search and grab a clue.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:
I'm not sure what your point is. I know many healthy kids and adults that adhere to a strict vegan lifestyle.

---

And I knew a lot of people who were healthy and lived on fast food. That doesn't mean it will last in the long-term or is good for everyone. Men's Health magazine had an article a fe wmonths ago from someone who had not had any fruits or vegetables in ten years, and was in great shape.

quote:

---

Try not to be non-sequitor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
So how about the BC couple that advocate consuming only products that originate within 100km of one's domicile? How does that meld with a veg or vegan lifestyle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

Pot meet kettle.

---

I was making a point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:

I guess it depends on whether their kids are still alive. (Sorry.)

---

Hmmmm. The sensationalising of a self claimed vegan lifestyle on the part of these unfortunate parents does not equate with stereotyping vegans as irresponsible parents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Hmmmm. The sensationalising of a self claimed vegan lifestyle on the part of these unfortunate parents does not equate with stereotyping vegans as irresponsible parents.

A society conditioned by the subliminal advertising of vested interests to consider indulgence of genetically modified, over salted,MSG loaded,"convenience" foods as the norm is duped into ridiculing more natural eating strategies.

---

You kind of lose credibility when you critique genetically modified foods, there's nothing wrong with them. Does broccoflower bother you? Seedless watermelon? Seedless oranges? They're not natural you know. And they're just cruder forms of engineering.

A) This story is not about using kids as guinea pigs. It's a bout two negligent parents who are trying to bust a murder charge by blaming it after-the-fact on their alleged vegan diet. It didn't wash in court, but apparently a lot of babblers seem to think it wasn't utterly ludicrous.

B) Or, some posters are getting some gleeful kicks in at vegans for whatever hidden motives--they don't have the self-discipline to change their diet and are bitter at those who do, or have low self-esteem and so feel judged by those who chose to live differently. For some reason, the way you express these feelings of inadequacy is to formulate all manner of absurd arguments "proving" that veganism is loopy. I'd of thought the normal response would be to live and let live--or at least learn a few things about a vegan diet before you make outrageous claims (no breast milk? What?) Defence mechanisms are wonderful things, aren't they?

C) The only people who know what vegan diets are, are vegans. So Jerry West's smug "gotcha" logic games simply demonstrate ignorance. In fact, I was a little uncomfortable with the other vegetarian thread that eschewed "fake" vegetarians. People have all different motivations and philosophies for becoming vegetarian, and I don't think there's a core group of "pure" vegetarians that can call someone who occasionally eats game meat or wild fish "fake." It is comforting, however, to know that Jerry West will be right there to tell vegans why they're so stupid as to think they are not eating animal products. Keep up the great insight, JW!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

You kind of lose credibility when you critique genetically modified foods, there's nothing wrong with them. Does broccoflower bother you? Seedless watermelon? Seedless oranges? They're not natural you know. And they're just cruder forms of engineering.

Veganism is not natural. But then again, neither is crop rotation.

---

What, you mean there IS a difference between natural breast feeding and using stable-bound cows milk? What next, people making silly distinctions between eating crops which gew in bug enhanced soil and eating their pet kittens??

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

Oyo boyo. Inserting pig genes into tomatos is not at all equivilant to natural selection or even traditional human breeding. The GM industry is a purely artificial one that would fail naturally I'm sure, if customers were allowed to see what they were buying and choose. Knowingly allowing the spread of GM crops into others fields could be considered criminally irresponsible.

---

Out of respect to the original purpose of this thread, I'll end my thread drift here, you can have the last word if you want.

I'd be in favour of labelling. But keep in mind that just because the public would oppose something doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. In the 70s the public was afraid of nuclear resonance imaging, so they just renamed it magnetic resonance imaging. Sometimes the public is irrational, and the hysteria over "frankenfoods" is an example of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

You kind of lose credibility when you critique genetically modified foods, there's nothing wrong with them. Does broccoflower bother you? Seedless watermelon? Seedless oranges? They're not natural you know. And they're just cruder forms of engineering.

---

No,broccoflower,applepears etc don't bother me but the cruder forms of social engineering do.

Eating genetically modified crap that tastes like papier mache but with a 2 month shelf life does. My point is that society is conditioned to accept these foods as the norm and to accept expensive year round access to these foods as normal and to consider the natural life cycle of plants with their attendant short shelf life as inadequate in order to support the profits of multinational agribusiness at the expense of local producers.

I think that much of the ridicule directed at vegitarians and vegans comes from this subliminal effort to change societal norms in the pursuit of profit.

The "fat free" canard is an example. Sure, the fat is reduced but the sugar component is raised so that the product doesn't taste like crap.

In Canada, the product ingredients labels are allowed a tolerance of 20%. Does anyone consider that manufacturers will not take full advantage of this leniency to obfuscate the nutritional value of their product?

quote:

---

Veganism is not natural. But then again, neither is crop rotation.

---

Veganism is not natural? Whyever not? Humans are omnivores. In a civilised context,humans have choices. In an uncivilised context,humans are as opportunistic as any other species concerned with survival and will exist on whatever comes available. There is no reason to suggest that humans cannot thrive on a vegan diet.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: mark_alfred ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Hmmmm. The sensationalising of a self claimed vegan lifestyle on the part of these unfortunate parents does not equate with stereotyping vegans as irresponsible parents.

---

quote:

---

Michelle:

With all due respect, this paragraph shows that you know dick about what being a vegan means.

---

Have I claimed too? If you think that I am making a definitive statement on what veganism is you are misreading what I am saying.

quote:

---

Again, show me even ONE reputable (or heck, even non-reputable) vegan web site where they say breast milk isn't vegan.

---

I haven't claimed that it isn't although I did put forward one train of thought that could make it so. You may have noticed that I also put forward a justification for it being vegan.

quote:

---

Maybe you should leave the preaching about what "vegan" means to people who have half a clue.

---

What do you mean by preaching. Asking questions is preaching? I am willing to bet that there are many meanings of "vegan" just like there are many meanings of Christianity or any other number of things. I certainly do not have a definition for what a vegan is and so far the defense of it on this thread hasn't narrowed down the meaning very much at all.

What is the official, universally accepted meaning of the term vegan?

quote:

---

Catchfire:
The only people who know what vegan diets are, are vegans.

---

So what are they? And do all vegans agree?

quote:

---

So Jerry West's smug "gotcha" logic games simply demonstrate ignorance.

---

If you mean by ignorance that I am not clear what vegan means, you are right, particularly after some of the explanations in defense of it on this thread. And, instead of dismissing the points that I raised as "gotcha logic" I don't suppose that you could address them in a civil manner that helps to explain at least your view of what vegan means?

quote:

---

It is comforting, however, to know that Jerry West will be right there to tell vegans why they're so stupid as to think they are not eating animal products.

---

You are truly off of the deep end here. Maybe your hair has caught fire?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:

That kind of zeal to inflict wrath more closely approximates evil ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:

As for vegan diets, I know plenty of healthy people that adhere to strict veganism, but I'm allergic to soy.

---

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: mark_alfred ]