This morning, in response to comments on the placenta casserole post, I contacted the vegan society to ask them the following, important questions:
Good morning,
I have a question concerning the nature of freely given meat. Firstly, and primarily, my question surrounds placentophagy. If my wife freely gives her placenta to be eaten and we eat it, does this fall within the remit of vegans?
As an aside, (and I ask this only out of curiosity and doctrinal confusion - it is unlikely to ever become an issue!) his other diet aside, could Armin Meiwes be considered vegan?
My personal thoughts were that, if the 'donor' had given permission for his remains to be eaten after death, say following an execution, then I think that probably yes, this would be conceivably vegan in nature, but as Meiwes first slaughtered his supper, as it were, I feel that the donor died solely in order to produce food so that, even though his meat was freely given, the taking of life for the purpose perhaps negates that.
As I say, I genuinely wish to know the answer to the placenta question and am interested in thoughts on the Meiwes argument.
Cheers,
Manley
And, almost immediately, I received this, frankly below par, response:I have a question concerning the nature of freely given meat. Firstly, and primarily, my question surrounds placentophagy. If my wife freely gives her placenta to be eaten and we eat it, does this fall within the remit of vegans?
As an aside, (and I ask this only out of curiosity and doctrinal confusion - it is unlikely to ever become an issue!) his other diet aside, could Armin Meiwes be considered vegan?
My personal thoughts were that, if the 'donor' had given permission for his remains to be eaten after death, say following an execution, then I think that probably yes, this would be conceivably vegan in nature, but as Meiwes first slaughtered his supper, as it were, I feel that the donor died solely in order to produce food so that, even though his meat was freely given, the taking of life for the purpose perhaps negates that.
As I say, I genuinely wish to know the answer to the placenta question and am interested in thoughts on the Meiwes argument.
Cheers,
Manley
Good Hi Manley,
Thanks for getting in touch. Strictly speaking placenta is not suitable for vegans because it is a human animal product, but if your wife gives it freely and willingly then it becomes an issue between her and the person receiving it. If everyone in the agreement is happy then there is no reason why this should not take place.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Clare
The Vegan Society
Donald Watson House,
21 Hylton Street,
Birmingham
B18 6HJ
Direct Line: 0121 523 1735
www.vegansociety.com
In all honesty I can only suggest that it is precisely this kind of issue avoidance that keeps the movement on the fringe.
Thanks for getting in touch. Strictly speaking placenta is not suitable for vegans because it is a human animal product, but if your wife gives it freely and willingly then it becomes an issue between her and the person receiving it. If everyone in the agreement is happy then there is no reason why this should not take place.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Clare
The Vegan Society
Donald Watson House,
21 Hylton Street,
Birmingham
B18 6HJ
Direct Line: 0121 523 1735
www.vegansociety.com
7 comments:
Did Armin Meiwes ever consider himself a vegan? I've snooped about and I can't find anything to suggest he was. It seems like a bit of a fuck on to try and get some depressed rentboy to agree to be killed and eaten if all he wanted to do is eat a bit of meat. Surely it would be easier to just go to the shop and buy some sausages. They have great sausages in Germany.
Indeed Meiwes was not a vegan. These questions were raised by someone commenting (under the veil of anonymity) on the placenta post (as linked in this post).
Still, I'd like to have known the vegan society's stance on the subject.
That's not issue avoidance. Avoidance would be not answering the question at all.
Which is what they have done with regard to the Armin Meiwes question, I think you willl find.
I cannot help but think that this comment would carry a certain heavier vein of gravitas, had I not added an extra L to will.
The way I read their response is that eating a human animal product is not vegan, but if it is given by consent it is free of cruelty and an ethical action. Putting it another way, if the mother gives consent that does not make the animal product vegan. Does that make sense?
I follow the line of your argument, but no, it makes no sense at all, it is simply ridiculous.
Yes.
That is rather the point.
Post a Comment