Canadian ethicist advocates ‘post-birth abortion’ for newborns

A Canadian bioethicist and philosophy professor at Queen’s University is lobbying for acceptance of “postnatal abortion” to justify euthanizing newborns with disabilities.

Udo Schuklenk, a well known supporter of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion, said he believes doctors “can justifiably euthanize certain severely impaired neonates,” and that parents “should be able to freely decide on what would amount to postnatal abortion,” in an article published in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

“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.

  • simus1

    They are “genocidists” and their pissing and moaning about hopeless tiny babies and the pain filled aged requiring their merciful ministrations is a BS smokescreen. Their ambitions reach far beyond such saintly pretensions.

  • tom_billesley

    It’s who the Nazis started on, with Aktion T4.

    • Yup, you can bet this Prof is a Liberal Party or NDP member.

  • Ed

    How long would the “Doctor” be thinking such killing is permitted after birth… would his parents have a say on what is currently “in the best interests of their child?”

    • Only Dr. Mengele would make that selection I suspect.

  • Iamnotweetoddit

    4th trimester abortion??? What is the professor in, his 240th trimester? Let him volunteer first.

  • Pete_Brewster

    So what sorts of disabilities would make it justifiable for the doctor to wring a baby’s neck? Being a white male?

  • Jason

    This is actually consistent with worldviews like post-modernism, which claims that there is no objective truth (a truth claim in itself, of course) or if there is truth, we can’t know it. From this assumption it follows that values themselves are subjective. Therefore, humans (or anything) then have no intrinsic (objective) value but only subjective value. So then how to determine value? Well, one way would be to look at “practical” issues – whether folks are contributing to society, or whether they’re suffering and uncomfortable, or likely to be.
    This is definitely a case for the Slippery Slope argument, wouldn’t you say? Heck, if they’re ugly or stupid, black or white, female or male, (etc.) let’s do the ethical thing and “help” them (that is, kill them). We actually see this in practice with gender specific abortions and the aborting of Down’s Syndrome fetuses, and certain cases of euthanasia. A kind of eugenics, really. (Interestingly, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a great believer in eugenics. Hmmm.)

  • Denis George Miller

    so can I perform a post-natal abortion on him? it just seems a viable answer to his lack of brain!

  • The liberal slippery slope.

  • Hard Little Machine

    As opposed to withholding life support and allowing them to starve or suffocate to death? You could make a case for that.

  • Jade

    Sounds like Nazi Germany.

  • Minicapt

    He competes with Prof Peter Singer, of Princeton University and Universoty of Melbourne:


  • Frances

    At the other extreme are those who insist on unduly prolonging the treatment of the newborn, no matter the prognosis. Many years ago, Peter Gzowski interviewed a couple whose infant son(?) was taken away from them by Childrens’ Aid Society because they would no longer consent to treatment they saw as increasingly invasive and futile, and wanted only palliative care until their child died in their arms. The judge was given a seriously unrealistic and optimistic prognosis for the baby, and they lost custody. A short time later, the infant died, in intensive care and far from his parents. I think they did get the body back. The mother’s comment was that when she heard the world “we have done everything humanly possible” she shuddered, knowing what that implied in the treatment of her son.