End-of-life debate turns to newborns: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says


Doctors would be justified to end the lives of some terminally impaired newborn babies, says a prominent Canadian bioethicist in a report that pushes the country’s euthanasia debate into provocative new territory.

Much of the discussion of physician assisted-death in Canada has centred around adult patients capable of making known how they want to end their lives.

But Udo Schuklenk, a Queen’s University philosophy professor, argues that in rare cases of severely impaired, deeply suffering newborns, actively causing death is morally acceptable, if still illegal in this country.



I can’t…even…BEGIN to get my head around this. What is wrong with people?

Fine it’s a “logical next step” for people who already support abortions in so many circumstances, but it’s just…I can understand (completely disagree with, but just about understand) at least some pro-abortion arguments. This is just…wrong… And a clear illustration of the real danger of the “slippery slope” argument against it all. I’m horrified.


What a bunch of NONSENSE!!

How North American academia has truly fallen on its face! :o :blush: :mad:

Let’s pray for the unborn. :gopray:


And this is why I despise the terms “ethics” and “ethicists.”





After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Though the following link reveals a letter that said the following:

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper.


Excerpt from the Aleteia article:

In their open letter, Profs. Guibilini and Minerva reference Michael Tooley — and rightly so. Tooley might be regarded as the “godfather” of the modern intellectual movement to establish the ethical and intellectual case for infanticide. In 1972, one year before the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down, Tooley published “Abortion and Infanticide” in the Princeton University publication “Philosophy & Public Affairs.” In it, Tooley offered an ethical rationale for both. He expanded on this in a 1983 book by the same name, published by the Oxford University Press.

In seeking to explain the trend towards acceptance of the idea of “post-birth abortion,” one pro-life activist quoted in the campus news article singled out the works of Princeton University professor Peter Singer, which she noted are often given as reading assignments to students.

In his books “Practical Ethics” (1979, Cambridge University Press) and “Rethinking Life and Death” (1994) Singer, like Tooley before, writes in defense of both abortion abortion and infanticide:

If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants(“Practical Ethics”) .

Singer further asserts that if there is such a thing as an inherent right to life, or a right not to be killed, then certain animals have a greater claim to it than a newborn human:

*If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal *(“Practical Ethics”).


This is no more than the natural progression of the “pro-choice” mindset in the world and our country, once we start down that slippery slope we shouldn’t be so shocked by where it we end up.


Hitler started the Holocaust with “euthanasia” for disabled babies* so I think we have an idea where this can lead.

*Goodwin’s Law doesn’t apply when the situations are comparable


There is no argument in favor of abortion that does not apply to babies outside the womb


I don’t understand why we haven’t latched onto marketing the concept that this is one of the ultimate forms of “bullying.” We’re picking on people who can not speak for themselves. (Of course, this goes beyond bullying–but there’s something so bullyish about this whole business.)


For the same reason you see militant “animals are people too” individuals also holding that abortion isn’t murder because the unborn child isn’t a person.


Yep. Sometimes I try too hard to make sense out of it when there’s no sense to be found.


It was only a matter of time till they came for the newborns…

To put this in perspective though, it is not new but just a variation on a very old argument that their side has lost time and time again. The disturbing thing this time around is that infanticide is being openly championed, rather than being practiced in the dark.


I was just looking at the chart from the story. It is shocking how much support there is for euthanasia in Canada. 56% of Canadian Catholics are for it! I wonder how accurate it is. Seems only the Evangelicals have any real resistance to the idea (I wish it were just an idea but I fear that ship has sailed).

This image is kind of big. I hope it doesn’t cause any problems.

closed #15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.