Sure. But i am distinguishing between the 'ethical vegan' ethos and just someone who is 'vegan'.
I am saying if you examine the ethos or logic or foundational reasoning for ethical vegans when it comes to what they ear it is based on a premise of 'do no harm to animals'. That leads them to 'eat no animals (meat)', and then was extended to 'eat no animal byproducts (cheese, milk, etc) because the systems of farming them also abuse the animals'.
So the ethical vegan reason is an extension of 'avoiding harm to animals', and not eating meat is simply an extension of that.
Picking up the eggs free range chickens lay does no harm. They are going to lay them regardless as that is the chickens period of fertility cycle waste. It is wasteful to just throw them away and not utilize them.
Similarly meat is on the verge of simply being manufactured in the way the Star Trek replicators does it, which means no harmful antibiotics or hormones in the meat. No animals harmed or killed in the process as it is all just cloned. That too will put ethical vegans to the question. Why would they not eat that 'meat' if it does no harm if the underlying logic of their position is now not an issue? Especially the ones who seek faux meat such as the "Beyond Meat' products who prove they truly crave meat?
Surely some will just not want meat and that is fine. Some may also think it is healthier to not eat meat (inaccurate) and that is fine. And some may just prefer 'no meat' as a choice, also fine. But once 'harm' is eliminated the 'ethical' component, no longer exists as a factor it will be interesting to see how that group (typically the most hardcore vegans) will react.