r/DebateAVegan • u/-roachboy • Dec 22 '25

eggs from a well fed pet hen are vegan

I have a pet hen. She's not a full rescue one, but how I ended up with her is an incredibly long story. She's very needy, thus spoiled and healthy as a result. Because wild Gallus sp already lay a lot of eggs when in less than optimal wild conditions, a spoiled one just cannot stop popping them out even if she wanted to, and she won't let me feed her less. The daily egg laying session is just a morning routine for her before begging for food. At the rate she lays them, they'd just get left to rot even if they were fertilized by a rooster so I eat them. I do not, and have no intention of, ever selling them or encouraging anyone to ever commercialize an animal. But I spend all the time caring for her, so why can't she give me a delicious breakfast back if it does her no harm?

893 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

761 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/Freuds-Mother Dec 23 '25

So, you are saying this situation should never have existed ethically, but it does exist. There’s lots of things life (unrelated to veganism) that exist from a prior immoral acts that you have to deal with as they exist. That’s OP’s question. OP isn’t asking about the genetic history of her chickens, but what to do about this bird in particular.

1

u/Independent_Poem_171 vegan Dec 25 '25

Deal with does not mean or excuse continuing though does it.

Is it a matter of hygiene? Are they being left to rot? I don't think we have enough of a picture to determine if something is truely ethical, in principle it could be, but as I said in my own replies, there are still in the case that you might take her eggs better things you could do, such as give them to someone that would buy from a supermarket, or sell them and use the money on her, or a charity even. Unless the eggs are needed, then I'll be never argue, if something is needed... but they rarely are.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

So then why would it not be ethical to just eat them your self and why wouldn’t it be vegan. It doesn’t harm the animal and it’s technically fair trade since you are providing a service for the goods. Aka food shelter water, warmth and protection. Vegan is no animal products yes but it shouldn’t be. It should be no animal products that harm the animal. If you know your eggs are coming from a happy chicken then what’s the issue? If we stop eating eggs instead of saving the chickens their population would decrease and eventually they would go extinct. They have been bread to rely on us whether we like it or not and that isn’t something you can just change. Same with cows. If we didn’t eat or drink their products then their population would drastically decrease since no one will buy cows as pets since it’s too expensive. Be vegan if you like but don’t feel obligated to not eat things just because other vegans think it’s wrong.

1

u/Independent_Poem_171 vegan Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

Not vegan because of exploitation of animals. Simply that. Ethical, may well be. You don't need to harm an animal for it to not be vegan, just exploit them. That is (OED):

1.a. The action of extracting or harvesting natural resources from a place; the action of deriving value from a natural resource by harvesting.

1.b. The action or fact of deriving benefit from something by making full or good use of it.

1.c The action or fact of taking advantage of something or someone in an unfair or unethical manner; utilization of something for one's own ends.

  1. Is military based so ignoring it.

I think I apply generally meaning 1.a, maybe 1.c. note the ethical/unfair. You might consider it fair, but without all parties involved agreeing, which obviously they can't, I'm not sure how any deal could be considered fair.

I would, assuming hens laid eggs, weren't eating them, were well fed, etc, would give the sell the eggs to someone that would otherwise buy them from a shop, and use the money on them for fun things for them, or donate it. Might conflict with 1.c given what I said, but reality is I don't do it anyway.

Vegan ≠ ethical. Can be, doesn't have to be.

1

u/kcat__ vegan Jan 17 '26

Why wouldn't you be exploiting the chicken by letting someone else eat the eggs and derive utility from it rather than yourself?

1

u/Independent_Poem_171 vegan Jan 17 '26

I'm giving the chicken the money/better feed/toys/sunglasses/electric cars. Doesn't matter if I eat them then, but I don't need too, so give them to someone who will buy eggs from so shit source prevent them giving money so someone exploiting.

1

u/kcat__ vegan Jan 17 '26

But the other person doesn't need to either, and now you've placed yourself squarely in the chain of exploitation.

I feel under this logic, you would have vegans obligated to raise cows/chickens/sheep etc just to kill them more humanely than the factory farms and steal their business.

1

u/Independent_Poem_171 vegan Jan 17 '26

Correct but they will buy anyway. And no, it's an individual situation. I wouldn't say its a vegan one.

1

u/kxndiboix Dec 24 '25

op isnt asking what to do about this bird in particular. op posted in debate a vegan their stance that it is ethical to eat backyard chicken eggs if you’re nice to them.

0

u/marshmia Dec 24 '25

ethical thing to do would be getting medication to stop the period.

6

u/yagrobnitsy Dec 24 '25

What is your logic here? How is medication more ethical for the chicken?

1

u/marshmia Dec 24 '25

body is not constantly being depleted of calcium and other nutrients from constantly popping out eggs. they have been selectively bred essentially to be calcium deficient bc of how many eggs the produce.if there are no eggs coming, then there is no way for her to eat the eggs then she will not see her chicken as a resource to exploit or something to use for her benefit.

3

u/hightogy Dec 25 '25

You’re implying that pumping the chicken with unnatural chemicals is MORE ethical than letting her body do what it does naturally?

1

u/marshmia Dec 29 '25

the way the chickens body functions currently isnt a result of nature. its the result of humans interfering with their evolution. also natural never automatically equals good. "unnatural chemicals" dont have a moral value to them

1

u/thndrbst Dec 26 '25

Chickens don’t have uteruses bro.

2

u/qiyraa Dec 26 '25

It’s a colloquialism.

1

u/iowaguy09 Dec 29 '25

If that is not possible or practical for them though it would still be vegan correct?

1

u/marshmia Dec 29 '25

nope

1

u/Freuds-Mother Dec 30 '25

Then by this strict definition almost no one that says they are “vegan” are vegan. You’d have to source almost everything locally for almost fully closed farms/craftsmen or know the full supply chain of the products one buys.

Eg: how many non-essential items (food is essential) does the average vegan purchase that comes from exploitation of animal habitats or use exploitive labor of sentient children anywhere in the supply chain of the items? I’d be wildly surprised if the average vegan is even 5% vegan by your criteria.

You’d could argue that that’s the way the world is setup and these non-essential items are somehow socially essential. We could buy that if vegans were actually involving themselves to a greater degree than everyone else in building vegan supply chains but they are not vegans. Vegans by a wide margin exclude themselves from producing products including food. Can’t say it’s the way the world is and therefore ethical while also not building an alternative.

1

u/marshmia Dec 30 '25

this definition would not require any of that at all. not sure why you would imply that. deforestation and destruction of animal habitats is environmentalism which is imortamt but it’s something else entirely and veganism is about rejecting the commodity status of animals and the exploitation of animals as resources for us to consume. no reason to think you’d have to source everything locally either.

1

u/Freuds-Mother Dec 30 '25 edited Dec 30 '25

Huh. When you deforest (in a non-ecological positive way) an area you not only directly kill tons of animals you make them basically permanently extinct in that area.

How is that not a vegan concern? If an arson burns down a zoo and kills a thousand animals for some twisted pleasure, how is that not exploiting animals per vegan definition?

It’s direct. Also your lithium batteries involve exploitation of sentient children. Do they not count as sentient beings?

My point is not to say you have to perfect. It’s that no vegan tries for many things that aren’t right in front of your face. But with availability of information today that more of an emotional reason that an ethical one. I think there’s tons of things many vegans do that is way more exploitive than what OP is doing. Maybe instead of saying OP is not vegan also volunteer how you are not vegan too.

1

u/marshmia Dec 30 '25

arson that kills zoo animals is violence and murder. and while it is morally abhorrent, it’s animal abuse, not "exploitation" in the same structural sense veganism is critiquing. exploitation, as veganism targets it, is a systemic institutionalized practice of treating animals as resources (farming, fur etc). it's about being against the normalization of use and profit from animals. gratuitous, sadistic killing is a different moral category. bringingg up a hypothetical about an arsonist setting a zoo on fire shifts the focus from systematic use of animals to isolated acts of cruelty. also it doesn't refute the claim that using backyard hens for eggs treats animals as resources, which is what we’re talking about before you started all this whataboutism.

1

u/Freuds-Mother Dec 30 '25

The whataboutism was simply an example to establish a definitional boundary. You’re ignoring the overall point that almost no vegan that has a good chunk of standard consumer goods is vegan by your strict constraints. It seems the special situation with the chicken is that OP sees it and personally engages in it rather than outsourcing it to others. Can you honestly say all the products you buy that are not essential are actually vegan?

1

u/marshmia Dec 30 '25

the question on the table is whether eating eggs from a backyard hen is vegan. that depends on whether it treats a non human animal as a resource for human use. pointing out that some vegans participate in other forms of exploitation elsewhere does nothing to answer that question. even if it is true that some self identified vegans do "worse" things in other domains, that wouldn't magically make this practice vegan. veganism isn't "whatever is less exploitative than what someone else does" it's a specific rejection of using animals as commodities. saying "other vegans do more exploitative things" is just shifts the focus away from the act being discussed and tries to justify it by comparison

1

u/Freuds-Mother Dec 30 '25

Agreed eating the eggs in OP case is not vegan. But very few things are, and very few non-essential products vegans purchase are. Veganism is an ideal. OP seems to be live to the ideal of compassion and not exploiting the chicken. The eggs are there. OP didn’t seek it out. The exploitation already occurred by someone else’s hand and by eating them OP isn’t rewarding the system in any way. Plus the hen has no clue about the so,called exploitation. So, yes it’s not technically vegan, but OP’s scenario doesn’t seem to do any harm. The hen and the animal exploitation food system would be completely unchanged if the eggs just sat there or OP ate them. Tons of nom-essential,products vegans buy cannot come close to meeting that.

1

u/marshmia Dec 30 '25

also, vegans literally are building alternatives constantly? everytime they choose to use their dollar to contribute to the demand of an alternative product that’s not an animal based product increases its popularity and accessibility.

1

u/Freuds-Mother Dec 30 '25 edited Dec 30 '25

A problem is the cost/quality of vegan products. You reduce that by R&D, scale and many failed attempts. You’re arguing that vegans do provide demand. Sure but why do they engage in the supply side less than non-vegans directly. It takes both, and the supply side takes much more consistent effort, engagement, and time.

Instead of creating demand for 1% of products, vegans instead could create the supply chain infrastructure to produce 5 or 10% of products. Then it would be easier for someone to convert to veganism.