Couple set up online vote to make abortion choice

[Tez3]

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2010/11...abortion-website-vote-abort-healthy-baby-boy/

This is wrong on so many levels.

 

[Carol]

*speechless*

 

[elder999]

*speechless*

Well, simply by virtue of their setting it up, I know how I'd vote.....:lfao:....

...some people shouldn't be permitted to breed, let alone raise children....:lfao:

 

[Tez3]

I believe in their right to choose but the thing is it's their decision, it should be a well thought out, soul searching, have a look at all possiblities long and hard made decision not oh lets not bother, put it up for everyone to have a say thing. There is a bit where it says they may be anti abortion setting this up as a protest against abortion clinic but that's just as stupid an idea.

 

[oaktree]

The poll says they should

Give Birth 78.38% (114,666 votes)

http://www.birthornot.com/

To have parents who treat your existance in life and death as a game or entertainment is a sicking display of coldheartness and grimaces.

I think of now how this child with have to endure these people as his or her parents.

 

[Tez3]

I think anyone voting on it, is frankly, as asinine as the couple that put the vote on there in the first place.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I seriously doubt that they set this up to make a decision. Far more likely to be purely attention seeking behavior.

 

[aedrasteia]

Remember the Balloon Boy?
Wait before jumping...pretty much my SOP these days:

"When we reported on the Minnesota couple who are putting their abortion up to an Internet vote, we wondered whether it was a pro-life stunt. The couple claim to have no agenda, but what's with the husband's anti-abortion Internet history? As our friends at Jezebel pointed out, there's evidence suggesting that the husband, Pete Arnold, is decidedly pro-life. From the Blog of the Moderate Left:

Pierre "Pete" Arnold III also used to be a "researcher, contributor, and part time producer for the Race to the Right radio show in St Cloud." He blogged at Always Right, Usually Correct, which had a hard anti-choice bent. He used the aliases "The Pete" and "Zeeboid" - indeed, the latter is both a domain he owns and the userid for his gmail account - but it's not that hard to track down.

One of the things Arnold did under his handle is change the definition of "pro-choice" in a Daily Kos Wikipedia entry to:

The term "pro-choice" is used by men and women who support a woman's right to kill an unborn child.
The term means that a woman has the right to determine whether or not she will be pregnant by killing a baby that has already been conceived.
Also Refered to as Pro Abortion
​

So, yeah, this whole thing is probably a pro-life prank to some extent: If the vote turns out to be in favor of having an abortion, the Arnolds could suddenly see the light and realize that all life is precious or something. If the vote comes out in favor of keeping the kid, it's proof that most people are pro-life. (The poll currently sits at 80 percent for birth—just a few more days left to vote!)
The real punchline will come when the Arnolds explain to their kid how they used his birth to make a pathetically confused political point."

source at Gawker. more info to follow.


Despicable people there. Despicable people here.
A





​

 

[Ken Morgan]

Pathetic

 

[Flea]

"And so a gut-wrenching decision is turned into an entertainment show."


I think this says it pretty well. Mass media has handled the sanctity of marriage with equal class and sensitivity with shows like "Who wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "The Bachelor." Life has a way of imitating "art," so if the site is sincere it wouldn't surprise me.

Still, My money would go on it being an anti-abortion prank. The only thing is that if they do keep the baby (assuming there actually is one in the first place!) truth will inevitably out and some day the child will discover just how much he was really wanted. If they're so ambivalent, they might be better off consulting with an adoption agency. (Bitter cynicism warning here) the kid is white, male, and by all accounts perfectly healthy, so he should place quickly.

Edit: It looks like their timing may be a little off, giving themselves only 2 days lead time to get the abortion. I don't know about MN, but a lot of states have mandatory 24-hour waiting periods. And we all know how long it can take to get in for medical procedures. But if they're both IT specialists they can probably afford to travel wherever they want to get a later-term procedure. Meh.

 

[Indagator]

I certainly hope it's not a stunt by pro-lifers. I'm a pro-lifer and I get really pissed off at the idiots amongst us who pull stupid stunts that undermine what we are trying to achieve.

Interestingly enough, though, both NARAL and the local prolife group, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life agreed that this was completely wrong.

I find the whole thing completely disgusting.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

On a side note, I hope everyone understands that a 'poll' done online is no poll at all. It does not measure ANYTHING except the actual response; it has no significance otherwise.

When one conducts a poll, one gathers opinions from a random pool of people who are NOT self-selecting. This gives statisticians the ability to apply mathematical tools that can, under proper circumstances, give a probability of being an accurate reflection of a given larger group of people to the same question or questions.

When one conducts a 'poll' on the Internet, it is nothing of the sort, despite being called that by CNN, MSNBC, and whomever wants to call it that. It's self-selecting; you cannot gather information on the people who read it and choose not to answer, and as I'm sure most of you know, as news spreads, groups organize a 'vote pro' or 'vote con' movement and urge others to 'vote' in order to intentionally skew the results.

The most obvious example of this type of behavior is the recent "Dancing with the Stars" brouhaha, in which people are outraged that Bristol Palin continues to be voted by viewers to remain on the show, despite what many complain is her clear inability to dance at all. This is a 'poll' of the same sort, but as I said, it is self-selecting; meaning it is not a poll at all. It's meaningless.

So no matter what the results of this 'vote' for or against the couple having an abortion, please bear in mind that the results mean NOTHING. It does NOT reflect public opinion one way or the other.

 

[CoryKS]

If society deems that abortion is something that should be made available to any who require it, that society has no basis for complaining that some individuals are making a game out of it. It's her body, her choice, and if that choice comes from an online poll rather than from sober reflection as we might have assumed, well, that's still a choice she has made. She could have thrown darts at a yes/no board for that matter. However she decides and whatever method she uses to decide, the outcome is either that she gives birth or does not give birth. Our society has decided that it's okay with either outcome.

 

[Flea]

Indagator, thanks for making that point.

One of the big rallying cries for the pro-choice movement is "every child a wanted child." Children don't necessarily have to be carefully planned in advance (though I feel they should,) but they should be born into a setting where they're cherished and supported in any way possible so they can thrive. If that's an adoptive home so be it, as long as they have the best possible shot at an excellent quality of life.

If the parents are so casual and callous toward this child as to put his very existence up to chance, he obviously isn't wanted. Which isn't to say that he shouldn't exist, but I pray they put him up for adoption if they bring him to term for his own sake. He deserves so much better.

Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land and for many excellent reasons, but this couple's behavior is the worst imaginable perversion of it. I'd have (vaguely!) more respect for an addicted mother who uses during pregnancy because at least she has diminished control over her actions. But this? They have absolutely no excuse, and it's an insult to the thousands of anguished women who have to face this painful decision the way one should.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think anyone voting on it, is frankly, as asinine as the couple that put the vote on there in the first place.

That is an asinine statement when you consider how easy it is to come across the survey. Its not asinine to try to save a baby's life with a simple click.
Sean

 

[miguksaram]

If society deems that abortion is something that should be made available to any who require it, that society has no basis for complaining that some individuals are making a game out of it. It's her body, her choice, and if that choice comes from an online poll rather than from sober reflection as we might have assumed, well, that's still a choice she has made. She could have thrown darts at a yes/no board for that matter. However she decides and whatever method she uses to decide, the outcome is either that she gives birth or does not give birth. Our society has decided that it's okay with either outcome.

I agree. I feel that this is tackless and a perversion of the right to choose, but since we as a society have never stipulated rules or criteria on the right to choose, meaning that the right to choose must be between both parents and should not be placed up online as a public poll, they have every right to use this as their deciding factor. I don't agree with, I think they both should be made sterile so they can no longer breed, but it is their overall right.

 

[Flea]

It's also worth pointing out that theorizing that this couple is actually pro-life is a big misnomer. Everyone is pro-life. We're all living and breathing, and (with very few exceptions) we all prefer to be that way.

But suggesting that this couple may secretly be espousing a pro-life view through this site have it all wrong. If the site is an anti-abortion stunt it isn't pro-life because of the cheap and callous image they're projecting. If it is a stunt, the correct term here would be anti-abortion. There's a big difference.

 

[CoryKS]

It's also worth pointing out that theorizing that this couple is actually pro-life is a big misnomer. Everyone is pro-life. We're all living and breathing, and (with very few exceptions) we all prefer to be that way.

But suggesting that this couple may secretly be espousing a pro-life view through this site have it all wrong. If the site is an anti-abortion stunt it isn't pro-life because of the cheap and callous image they're projecting. If it is a stunt, the correct term here would be anti-abortion. There's a big difference.

It's only a big difference to people who are emotionally invested in the topic. I use the term "pro-abortion" all the time (drove my wife nuts). I use it in the sense of "approves of the legalization of abortion", not "approves of the act of abortion". To me, it's a more correct term because the real issue is the legal status of it, not the morality of it. Others may see it as a loaded term. I don't really care.

 

[The Last Legionary]

Can I vote that they are aborted?

 

[Tez3]

It was a 'social experiment' parents say in other words a hoax by attention seekers.

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2010/12...o-abort-or-not-couple-admit-story-was-a-hoax/