Image Credit: Oscar Wong / Getty 
(LifeSiteNews) — On June 20, the UK Parliament voted to legalize assisted suicide. Over 300 amendments and safeguards to Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s bill were rejected.
The bill passed over the objections of a staggering array of opponents, from former prime ministers to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Even high-profile interventions from top medical authorities did not stop the bill. Despite losing scores of votes on third reading, it retained enough support to head to the House of Lords.
It was the second death vote in a week. On June 17, the UK Parliament voted to decriminalize abortion until birth. On Tuesday, the young. On Friday, the vulnerable and the elderly. The former received less than an hour of debate.
On June 22, a debate broke out over euthanasia. Furious discussions on television ensued, and social media feeds were filled with angry comments; but not because the House of Commons had just legalized butchering babies or euthanizing the elderly. Instead, it was because independent Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, in a revelation that apparently constitutes news, had his 17-year-old suffering dog shot so that he could be put out of his misery.
Rupert Lowe MP has sparked furious debate after revealing he had his 17-year-old dog shot by a gamekeeper rather than euthanised at the vet.
— GB News (@GBNEWS) June 22, 2025
He called it 'the kindest thing.'
Critics say it was cruel and unnecessary.
🤔 What do you think? — Cruel or Compassionate? pic.twitter.com/WDjbB9dWrY
My first thought upon seeing this genuinely frivolous debate is that anyone professing shock or outrage by this banal fact has clearly been carefully insulated from the basic facts of life for a very, very long time. Anyone who lives in the country knows that sometimes animals need to be put down, and that there is no more humane way to do so than instant death by gunshot. The idea that it is necessary to spend exorbitant amounts of money at the vet is ridiculous and indicative of an urban cocoon.
Lowe himself appeared boggled that his very ordinary act had turned into a story. “How is this news?” he wrote on X. “No apologies from me. I’d do the exact same tomorrow if required. I am a farmer. This happens on a farm. I wouldn’t expect Londoners who trap their dogs in a tiny flat for 12 hours a day to understand. They know nothing about life outside the M25, let alone what actually happens on a working farm.”
READ: Euthanasia activists are glamorizing assisted suicide with sick ‘love story’ propaganda
But the debate, one TV host noted, went on for an entire week — the same week in which Parliament had approved butchering full-term babies in the womb and putting down the vulnerable.
The contrast between MPs professing to be horrified at the specter of an ancient suffering dog being put out of his misery while cheering brutality against the human helpless is a grim but perfect microcosm of what that once great country has been reduced to.
As Mary Harrington put it: “the broadly Christian anthropology that, for a long time, underpinned and guided England’s common political life is now simply gone. It feels a bit like that weird interlude after a tooth extraction, when you can’t stop nudging at the gap with your tongue.” The United Kingdom is a different country today than it was last month, she argues, adding:
It felt like a metaphysical attack because it was a metaphysical attack. The passing of these two policies of death signals England’s definitive institutional transition to a worldview other than Christianity: one for which perhaps the politest and least denunciatory term we could use is ‘extremist bio-libertarianism.’ It’s a worldview that rejects out of hand the idea that anything about our embodied life as human beings should be regarded as given, from our form, our development, our natural history, or our relations to others. For bio-libertarians, every means possible should be used, whether financial, political, judicial, or technological, to liberate us from anything that might be experienced, residually, as beyond our individual choice and control.
Harrington is right. In a country where dismembering babies who can survive outside the womb gets less than an hour of parliamentary debate, the death of an old farm dog can still trigger outrage. Shooting a dog is horrifying; putting down grandma like a household pet is, apparently, not.
FBI Confirms 2020 Election Theft!
