Screwball Vegan parents could be criminally charged

[PainRack]

I remember reading about a case which took place a few years ago in the U.S. where the parents of an infant were charged (and IIRC found guilty of murder) after the child died as the result of malnutrition. The parents fed the child soy milk and apple juice and explained that they were following their conviction not to use any "animal products".

There's supposed to be soy milk formula for infants, for babies who turn out to be intolerant to cow milk. If they're not supposed to use animal products, fine, buy that brand. Not the damn adult soy milk you drink which has no fat.

[Sidewinder]

There's supposed to be soy milk formula for infants, for babies who turn out to be intolerant to cow milk. If they're not supposed to use animal products, fine, buy that brand. Not the damn adult soy milk you drink which has no fat.

The Wikipedia article on soy milk echoes your claim, but I've yet to find evidence of this formula's existence outside of the article.

[Broomstick]

Yo - I was given soy-based infant formula over 40 years ago, so perhaps I can serve as your evidence, being alive and all. Of course, it's not just soy milk, even back then there was a lot of stuff added to it to make it more nutritious for infants. I'm sure today's formulations are even better. I doubt it's something the average vegan can cobble together on a kitchen counter, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if it contained "animal products" to boost the nutrition.

[Buddha]

Jainists won't kill animals under any conditions if they can help it, so maybe it caught on back when Nehru jackets were fashionable and people used to cheer wildly when Ravi Shankar tuned his sitar.

I also think Disney had a hand in it, with his talking cartoon animals -especially Bambi. Animal rights nuts always show a kind of infantile attitude towards nature.

Jains are the extreme end of the Ahimsa ladder. They have also been known to avoid killing any living thing, even insects while walking. They are a monastic order that is mostly living in total seclusion. They are only slightly more extreme than most Hindus.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Again, we see that anti-science idiocy is not the sole domain of religion. The increasing number of areligious people are not necessarily scientifically thinking ones.

[Cairber]

All the major formula producers have a soy brand and all the generics are getting into it, too. It's become pretty popular despite the numerous warnings that it should be a very last choice for infant feeding.

[Mange]

I remember reading about a case which took place a few years ago in the U.S. where the parents of an infant were charged (and IIRC found guilty of murder) after the child died as the result of malnutrition. The parents fed the child soy milk and apple juice and explained that they were following their conviction not to use any "animal products".

There's supposed to be soy milk formula for infants, for babies who turn out to be intolerant to cow milk. If they're not supposed to use animal products, fine, buy that brand. Not the damn adult soy milk you drink which has no fat.

I was thinking more along the lines of breastfeeding (and soy allergy is quite common).

[Broomstick]

All the major formula producers have a soy brand and all the generics are getting into it, too. It's become pretty popular despite the numerous warnings that it should be a very last choice for infant feeding.

Well, yes, but since my mother couldn't breastfeed (and no, I don't know the details, only that she had tried with prior siblings with no success) and I couldn't tolerate any other formula available at the time I can't really complain. It may not be the best nutrition, but it is certainly adequate in those cases where there are few or no alternatives. Thank goodness we do have alternatives for difficult situations.

Although, again, I emphasize that soy formula is quite different from soy milk.

[Darth Wong]

Part of the problem with breastfeeding is that it's a skill like any other, and it's possible to do it wrong. A lot of women fail at breastfeeding because nobody ever taught them how to do it properly, and their kids don't take to it as naturally as some others do. With some kids, you just put him near the boobie and it's pretty much automatic, but with others, you need to know what you're doing. If you don't, you can get frustrated and give up, never to try again.

[Broomstick]

There are times, however, when breast feeding is NOT a good choice. There are some unfortunate women who just don't produce enough milk, or any - just as any other bodily part or system can malfunction so can that one. There are women who take medications that can be passed via breast milk who should not breast feed - cancer chemotherapy being one (in such cases cancer treatment would be delayed until childbirth, after which you definitely want to aggressively treat the woman - but chemo is toxic even to adults, much less infants. Chemo is so toxic that some men undergoing chemo must use condoms because the chemicals shed in their ejaculate are sufficient to make a sexual partner ill if normal contact occurs. Imagine a woman taking the same drugs breast feeding an infant multiple times per day...) There are other situations where women require medication that is potentially hazardous to a breast-fed baby. Women who are injured, or become seriously ill, may cease to make milk, and that may occur rather abruptly. Women can also die at or shortly after birth, which is another situation where formula may be the best option with breast feeding unavailable.

For these reasons I feel that there is merit in continuing to improve infant formulas. The alternatives would be either wet nurses - not likely in our current society - or allowing infants to starve. I am aware that some countries have breast milk banks, but while that is an excellent option I'm not certain that it will truly cover all instances where the baby's own mother's milk must be either supplemented or entirely replaced.

This is, of course, in no way disputing the ideal that breast really IS best - when it's an actual option. We do not live in an ideal world.

[PainRack]

Yo - I was given soy-based infant formula over 40 years ago, so perhaps I can serve as your evidence, being alive and all. Of course, it's not just soy milk, even back then there was a lot of stuff added to it to make it more nutritious for infants. I'm sure today's formulations are even better. I doubt it's something the average vegan can cobble together on a kitchen counter, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if it contained "animal products" to boost the nutrition..

Well, cholesterol is by definition an animal product.

[Vehrec]

Yo - I was given soy-based infant formula over 40 years ago, so perhaps I can serve as your evidence, being alive and all. Of course, it's not just soy milk, even back then there was a lot of stuff added to it to make it more nutritious for infants. I'm sure today's formulations are even better. I doubt it's something the average vegan can cobble together on a kitchen counter, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if it contained "animal products" to boost the nutrition..

Well, cholesterol is by definition an animal product.

Technically all eukaryotes produce Cholesterol. Animals just have more.

[JCady]

The notion that people should NEVER eat animals or animal byproducts is a form of religion: Animal Deification. You want to know how fanatical it is? The Koran allows the faithful to eat forbidden foods (pork, catfish, horsemeat, shellfish) if the alternative is starving, and the vast majority of fundie Jews allow the eating of non-kosher food, on the assumption that the diet laws are principles to live by, not principles to die by.

I wonder how the New Age notion of Animal Deification came about (it's noticeably different from the worship of animal totems I read about in mythology), especially considering these New Age people are often seen as atheists despite their belief in a higher power (Gaia), souls (spiritualism), magic (crystals and their ability to tune people's life energy). And unlike the gods that are traditionally worshiped, the de facto gods the New Age people obey don't seem to give a damn about what happens to her followers.

Not all animal rights supporters are that fanatical, though. My opinion is that animals should have basic rights, but that those rights are trumped by human rights. For example, I consider it unethical to harm an animal for the purposes of entertainment, but ethical to kill and eat an animal for the purpose of survival.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Not all animal rights supporters are that fanatical, though. My opinion is that animals should have basic rights, but that those rights are trumped by human rights. For example, I consider it unethical to harm an animal for the purposes of entertainment, but ethical to kill and eat an animal for the purpose of survival.

YOU MONSTER!


I'd actually say most animal rights supporters are much like you, where they consider causing needless harm is unacceptable but are basically fine with using animals as a food source, provided the animal is raised and slaughtered in a humane way. It's just that the crazies are more vocal about their beliefs, and so they give the false impression of supporters of animal rights being mostly nutters that would run over a human baby rather than a dog.