Philosophy professors rarely make the news, so Udo Schuklenk of Queen’s University must be pleased. His recent suggestion that in some cases, parents should be permitted to kill “deeply suffering newborns,” is getting much attention. And not just “deeply suffering” in regards to having parents willing to kill them, either. Schuklenk is talking about “euthanizing” little human beings who are not, in his view, compatible with life.
Some headlines are exceptional for what they do not say. For example, the National Post’s headline on Sunday: “End-of-life debate turns to newborns: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says.”
Almost none of these words mean what they say. By “end-of-life,” for example, they do not mean dying. They mean being killed, but since they didn’t want to say that, they had to come up with something that had some nice hyphens so people wouldn’t feel so threatened.
“Post-natal abortion,” of course, would be infanticide. Not that I expect the Canadian establishment to care, considering that the revelation of 491 babies being left to die after failed abortion attempts in Canadian hospitals went past with barely a whisper. But let’s at least call it what it is. The reason, of course, that this morally-impaired “ethicist” wants to keep using the word “abortion” is because it has served those who support the shredding of human life in the womb so well.
“Abortion:” Hiding Chopped Off Limbs And Severed Heads Since 1969.
“Morally acceptable” is a phrase repulsive when being used, constantly, to justify some new category of killings. “The slippery slope is just fear-mongering from the pro-lifers!” the Mengelese ethicists protest smugly, while digging a new trench at the bottom of said slope to defend their next pile of corpses.
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
When the hospital hallway is slick with blood, it’s easy to slip from handing adults the death pills they’ve requested to injecting poison right into a languishing newborn’s heart.
According to LifeSiteNews:
“Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible,” Schuklenk argues.
“If his prolonged dying is harmful to them (the parents) a further quality-of-life based argument in favor of terminating the infant's life is established,” Schuklenk wrote.
Schuklenk rationalizes his argument in favor of “postnatal abortion” with the statement that “in morally important ways his [a newborn baby's] developmental state is closer to that of a fetus than to that of a person like you or me.”
Right. So, as pro-lifers have been saying all along, the formerly-pro-choice vultures won’t stop with abortion and assisted suicide. They will, as Schuklenk already argues, soon demand the right to kill outside the womb as well.
After all, the lighting is so much better.
Reprinted with permission from CCBR.