Thanks Vegan Dogs for showing that Abolitionist position. Standing against the speciesism is essential.
I don't see that there was always the issue with those not caring about animals that would call themselves vegan, that there is just now, even with these who get called environmental vegans or health vegans. Originally vegetarianism involved caring for the animals, and was very much with the original people involved in it much like vegans are more recently. Vegetarianism became compromised with those who would still have dairy products and those who would still have use of eggs seeking to be included calling themselves vegetarians. Over generations it came to mean those who would still use eggs or dairy products, just with not having meat. I switched from being vegetarian to being vegan when I saw great reasons why to be, and not any great reason left not to be. I would hate to see the term vegan now become compromised from what I saw the good reasons for being.I am going to study the documents on this website and compare them to this: https://catinfo.org/docs/DrZoran.pdf and get back to you.
In the meantime, I wanted to tell you that Gary L. Francione does not use the word "veganism" synonymously with "the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights", so why are you doing that - saying for example,
"The first Principle of Veganism is...ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS as PROPERTY therefore we have no moral "right" to use them"?
If you are curious as to how he does use the word vegan, he uses a hybrid Watson/Cross definition. Unlike most of the people who contributed to this thread, he would not tell someone who follows a vegan diet "you're not vegan, you're plant based. You have to believe in animal rights to be a vegan." That is abundantly clear from this 2009 blog post. Here are excerpts that support the above comment (bold and bracketed commentary mine):