What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.
I know the article isn't advocating euthanasia. I think that, too, is a flaw in the logic of the article.
I think it's totally fine to exhort people who don't have strong dog preferences to select non-compromised dogs. It also makes sense to me to advocate rescues. We own a rescue, too. Where you lose me is when you suggest that it's unethical to purchase a purebred dog.
Acquiring a rescue when you have a preference for a purebred puppy is an ethically positive action. I think few people here would disagree with that. The fallacy in your argument is that the positive outcome of acquiring a rescue does not automatically imply that a acquiring a purebred is ethically negative; it can be --- and I think usually is --- ethically neutral.
You haven't established that the suffering is unnecessary. Unless I'm obligated to own a (second) dog, a compromised dog is better (for the dog!) than no dog at all.
What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.