have different views to ourselves. Does Laone want her children to be thinking people or automata? Laone is right when she questions the possibility of rearing truly vegan children when she considers the areas of vaccination and hospital treatment, but in The Vegan the definition of veganism given is that of a "way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals for food, clothing or any other purpose". There is no compromise to vegan principles in being unable to achieve the
brought up with a respect for living things, and who question the ethical stance of veganism are doing precisely what their parents did when they embarked on their own journey towards an existence free of animal exploitation. For veganism to be a real way of life, it needs to be a strong commitment, not merely an indoctrination. In order to reach that place of commitment, some children may test other ways of life, but I would suggest that, it they have been brought up by parents who set a caring example, as opposed to those who seek to bully their children into accepting their own views, it will only be a matter of time before the well-balanced individuals produced by these vegan parents realize for themselves the benefits of veganism on both a personal and global scale. Even in the unlikely event of this not being so, it seems to me that a meat-eater who is otherwise kind, caring and concerned to protect the environment as the result of having been raised by vegan parents, is preferable to one who has no awareness of the importance of these issues because they have formed no part of their upbringing.
Very few of us fit in perfectly all the time impossible, in terms of medicine, but if there are no vegan parents producing children and seeking vegan alternatives to routine treatments there will be no incentive for the medical profession to develop any such alternatives. As to her contention that vegan children are more likely to suffer ridicule and isolation as the result of being different from their peers, the same could be said of the children of the very short, the very tall, the disabled, the physically unattractive -— in fact about any group who had not leapt straight out of a glossy washing powder advertisement. Most of us are seen as different at some point in our lives. Very few of us fit in perfectly all the time. But we don't tell all those whose offspring are likely to fall outside the 'normal' height/weight/ aesthetically pleasing range not to have children. In this country, we don't even sterilize psychopaths, but vegans are apparently supposed to refrain voluntarily from having children in order to help safeguard the world.
Automata In any case, not to have children because they may not turn out the way we hope is rather like not having them in case they turn out to be rapists. We tend to think that if we do our job as parents well, our children will recognize the evil of rape, and I believe that the same applies to veganism or any other moral point we seek to teach our children. We must not confuse the proper education of children with the stifling of their rights to come to their own moral conclusions about the world, and this is something which is part of being human, and is a journey which must be made by all eventually, regardless of whether they are the biological or adopted children of vegans. Perhaps Laone's adopted children will also reject her veganism one day. Will her pain be any less than if they were her biological children? If we follow her argument to its logical conclusion, we should not even adopt in case our adopted children
Spreading the Word I might just be able to accept that if I thought that it would save the world — or even help it a little — but I don't believe it would for a moment. In the same issue of The Vegan
s f c w r ^ T mm™ ofHp ^ , iMfo (tie
Louise Wallis pointed out in 'Chairsay' that the number of vegans in Britain is now around 100,000 — not an enormous proportion of the population it has to be said, but one which is growing. I for one am quite pleased about that, because while fully accepting that the world is overcrowded, it seems to me that if there is any group which we should be pleased to see increase, it is one which recognizes the rights of all those who live on this planet, and not just those of human beings. And it also seems to me that the most effective way to further veganism is for vegan parents to bring up vegan children. If we don't have children in case they don't remain vegan (or maybe don't even risk adopting them for the same reason) the population won't be greatly reduced — what difference would 100,000 really make in Britain — but what will be significantly reduced is the number of vegans. The group which Laone identifies as "the most mindful and unselfish" would be the only casualty of such a pessimistic outlook, and the causes of veganism or planetary care would be furthered not at all. Finally, it is with this extreme pessimism of Laone's that I would take particular issue. Far from the only fact that I can guarantee my children being death, I believe that I can also guarantee them a loving childhood, the experience of being respected as individuals and that of learning the benefits of treating others, human or otherwise with similar respect. The embrace of this world need not be 'cold and cruel'. It could be warm, kind and compassionate — but only if vegans and other like-minded groups continue to spread the message of compassion and care world wide. It is very difficult to see how we're supposed to achieve that if our already comparatively small numbers are to be reduced still further by a self-imposed ban on the bearing and rearing of children. Liz Mabbott
—
r S ^
t & m
W
OF GFCATI'VKJJ • JOVJVT TJ£ACB
M f v a ,
I
MENGA THAT'CL \ ASJOVWO A U ,
lot)
OATes,
(itMS-rGJs/Af^l,
Aoesfl*?" Oeokafe*
T o f t o s e
23 The Vegan, Winter 1994
What will be significantly reduced is the number of vegans
f<ce
rffoJfit'
*
AMy-ffaufc
g M t f r f l S d ' f i t t o t e
7
l / ^ p o F T ^ O cP0t£D
MiiLI