This situation kinda reminds me of John Locke talking about slavery. He says that for some rights to be truly inalienable, that people themselves should not have the ability to willingly surrender them, such as by willingly selling themselves into slavery. Now, yes, John Locke owned stock in a slave trading company, so he's a hypocrite in that regard, but I digress. I feel like this is one of those things where people shouldn't be allowed to physically sell parts of their body for consumption, as "not being eaten by other people" is one of those inalienable rights we should have as a society.

I think this is a fantastic thought experiment. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, she probably was. No one argues against a baby having milk, otherwise the baby would literally die.

Did roadkill consent?

How about all the bugs you splat on your windshield?

That's the point.

Veganism, as far as I can tell, is not so much about not consuming animal products as it is about not consuming anything that causes harm to animals.

By that logic, you would keep your child on breast milk as long as possible, to avoid having to switch to cow milk or formula.

Almond, cashew, oat, soy...

Which would mean there's the possibility of this new short horror story I just wrote:

I noticed two new options in the dairy aisle today: human breast milk, vegan and non-vegan.

So meat is vegan as long as the cows consent?

I'm more animal than most

Only if you define vegan as to strictly avoid any animal product (and define humans as animals). A somewhat looser Definition says to avoid animal exploitation.

So a product made by a non-domesticised animal in a natural way - e.g. Penguin guano - could be seen as vegan. The animal produces it anyway and the product isn't won through keeping the animal captive and / or "stealing" from it.

After all I wouldn't be too strict with definitions here.

Sorry fellow vegan, the post made it seem like human breast milk is somehow worse than or comparable to "conventional" cow's milk.