No. That would be murder, plain and simple.
Are you pro-choice? Because if you are, your argument is weak. What's the difference between killing a fetus and killing an infant, especially from the perspective of a random person having no correlation with the infant whatsoever?
I am pro-life. But we're talking about people who are already born here, so I decided not to stir up the usual verbal fist-fights that surround conventional abortion. Genie's out of the bottle now, I guess.
Actually the pro-choice argument is extremely strong. It's just not as philosophically simple, as black-and-white, as the pro-life position.
Obviously by saying this I'm trying to provoke conversation/debate/discussion. If anything, please consider this a polite invitation that can be turned down without shame. Because I have to warn you, if you want to get into this conversation with me, expect responses and rebuttals upwards of 15,000 words (sometimes I have too much time on my hands).
In my opinion, we have to draw a line at some point. We - as a society, as humans. Is a freedom of choice a right thing in every possible context? In order to estimate where that line should be drawn, we have to analize various hypothetical situations. The most extreme example in this case would be seriously ill baby and mother/parent not capable of taking care of it. But this again rises a questions whether the illness of a baby is preventing it from being happy in a future (who is to judge?) and whether the parent is really unable to do anything for the baby? My answer is: there is always a chance for a happiness and there is always some kind of a solution. It is hard to measure happiness or perhaps "chance for a normal life". I would consider abortion in some really difficult cases as admissible (it's a very personal and hard choice for a women) but post birth euthanase crosses the line.
We also have to remember that science moves forward with regard to medical treatments. My dad's oldest brother was born with a closed esophagus. This was at a time when IV needles for infants were unheard of, and as far as I know, they didn't do surgery on infants either. He slowly starved to death.
My dad was born with the same condition, but his doctor took the approach of opening his esophagus using an eye dropper containing acid. It was crude, but effective. My dad had acid reflux his whole life because the acid also damaged the valve between his esophagus and stomach, but he was fit enough to be sent overseas in World War II, he later got married, and he fathered five children. He lived to be 74.
Nowadays, surgeons can give IV's to babies and they have the tools and techniques necessary to correct the problem with surgery. But what if everyone had just euthanized infants with this condition? Would doctors have come up with solutions to this problem, or would euthanasia be considered the solution? My uncle who died in infancy lived a short, cruel, and painful life, but I don't think his life or death, or the lives and deaths of other children like him, were in vain. I think they inspired doctors to look for treatments for this birth defect, and inspired parents to demand them.
It's funny, isn't it? Our ancestors for most of human history suffered pain without painkillers and when surgery was performed, it was done with crude skills and crude tools and no anesthetic. Children died in droves from diseases for which there was no cure or preventative vaccination. Any birth defect, whether cosmetic or disabling was yours for a lifetime. Now we have painkillers, anesthetics, well-trained and well-equipped surgeons, vaccinations, antibiotics, and even a few antiviral agents, and we talk about ending life preemptively to avoid suffering.