The Arnolds are having a baby. Unless the public votes to have the child aborted. Meet the couple behind Birthornot.com, where "you can vote and choose whether we abort or keep our unborn child." 
 
 Pete and Alisha Arnold, both 30, both tech professionals, live in the Minneapolis suburb of Apple Valley and have been married for 10 years. Since September, they've blogged about their expected child at birthornot.com, posting health updates about the mother and the fetus (which will be 17 weeks-old tomorrow), and ultrasound pictures and video. But at the top of the blog is a poll hosted by PollDaddy.com. The question: "Should We Give Birth or Have an Abortion?" "Give Birth" has 46 percent of the vote at the moment, with "Have an Abortion" at 54 percent. The poll closes on December 7th. 
 
 Pete told us over the phone that on that day he plans to check Polldaddy's records to make sure there hasn't been any double-voting or other evidence of fraud and then he and Alisha will use the results to decide whether to keep the baby. They'll have two days to make a decision before the 20th week of Alisha's pregnancy ends, and, with it, her last chance to get an abortion. The poll will influence their decision heavily, the couple said by phone this evening, but it won't be binding. "It's kind of like Congress. They might vote for something, but the president has the final veto. If it's overwhelming one way or the other, that will carry a lot more weight." 
 
 That someone would do this is almost impossible to believe, of course. We asked the Arnolds if this was some sort of a prank. "No, it's not. We are taking this very seriously," Pete replied. We then asked if this was some sort of convoluted pro-life stunt. Alisha laughed. "It's definitely not a pro-life campaign," she said. "I believe in a woman's right to choose." 
 
 According to the couple, they've been unsure about whether they're ready to be parents and have concluded that the best way to proceed is to ask random people on the Internet if they should have the child. (Tests have revealed that the fetus is a boy.) Alisha said that two pregnancies ended in two miscarriages in the past year and a half. During the second pregnancy, the couple bought the birthornot.com domain, and were in the process of deciding whether to put the birth up to a vote when they lost the baby. When Alisha got pregnant a third time a few months ago, they decided to launch birthornot.com. 
 
 Pete, who described himself as a Libertarian, framed the couple's majority-rule abortion as kind of an extreme civics lesson that he hoped would bring the abortion debate home. "Voting is such an important part of who we are as a people," Pete said. "Here's a chance where people can be heard about whether they are pro-choice or whether they are pro-life, and it makes a difference in the real world." 
 
 We pointed out an obvious flaw with his logic: The vast majority of people who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion, so it wouldn't figure that they would automatically vote for the abortion option. The only people who would probably vote for the abortion are trolls who want to piss off pro-lifers. (In fact the anarchic message board 4chan has already hijacked the poll a couple times, tilting it to the "abortion" side.) Pete countered that during elections, "people do silly stuff all the time, and their votes get counted anyway." 
 
 We're not sure what to make of Pete and Alisha Arnold, to be honest. But here are three possibilities: 
 
 1) It's is an idiotic prank. Pete and Alisha are intent on becoming famous any way they can, and they've hit on an outrageous way to get media coverage. But if this all was a prank, wouldn't they have gotten the word out before now? They've been blogging since September. 
 
 2) This is a pro-life stunt. Pete said he's a non-practicing Catholic, while Alisha is a Methodist. Although the Arnolds describe themselves as political independents with Libertarian leanings, Alisha likes Glenn Beck on Facebook, and a Google search turns up an old pro-Bush comment Pete made on CNN. (Pete said he voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004.) Could this site be a confused parable to illustrate the peril of putting an unborn baby's life in the hands of voters? 
 
 3) It's true. Pete and Alisha are actually going to choose to have an abortion based on an Internet poll. 
 
 Regardless of your position on abortion, all of these possibilities suggest these people should never, ever raise a kid. 
 
 Update: Abortion-by-Vote Is Probably a Pro-Life Stunt ||||| It's official. Pete and Alisha Arnold are the most horrible people in all the Interweb land. 
 
 They are a couple in Minneapolis who is offering up their pregnancy to the Internet gods. The Arnolds are both 30 and have been married 10 years. Allegedly, they are undecided on having children and, after having two failed pregnancies, Alisha is pregnant for a third time. Through their website BirthorNot.com, they are allowing the Internet to vote on whether they should have the baby or abort. 
 
 Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. They claim that this isn't a pro-life publicity stunt, though it's hard to believe otherwise. What is a fact here is that no matter what the reason they're doing this is, it's a pretty despicable thing to do. 
 
 Some facts the Arnolds have probably missed: 
 
 Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion: One can support every woman's right to make her own choice while also finding abortion to be an unfortunate and painful choice. Just because I think abortion should be legal doesn't mean I support it in general. I have had two babies and no abortions and I know pregnancy is a life. But I'm not going to tell another person what they should believe. 
 
 One can support every woman's right to make her own choice while also finding abortion to be an unfortunate and painful choice. Just because I think abortion should be legal doesn't mean I support it in general. I have had two babies and no abortions and I know pregnancy is a life. But I'm not going to tell another person what they should believe. Abortion is a personal decision : Just like I can't tell some woman she should have 10 children because she and her spouse are beautiful and intelligent (and have PhDs from Ivy League schools), I can't tell someone they shouldn't have children because they can't afford it. It's the beauty of living in the US. We don't tell others how to live their lives. 
 
 Just like I can't tell some woman she should have 10 children because she and her spouse are beautiful and intelligent (and have PhDs from Ivy League schools), I can't tell someone they shouldn't have children because they can't afford it. It's the beauty of living in the US. We don't tell others how to live their lives. Abortion isn't easy: If they do support a woman's right to choose, as they say they do, then they're doing it a major disservice. They're pretending this is easy and that the majority of the US should decide what happens in their lives. That isn't what abortion is all about. The whole point is that it's a difficult, emotional decision and that women need to be free to make it themselves. 
 
 It isn't up to the public to tell the Arnolds whether they should have a baby or not. It's up to the Arnolds to decide, but as long as they're putting it up for public discussion, then we can weigh in. So here is mine: 
 
 No matter what their reasons are for doing such a stupid, inane, and possibly sick-in-the-head publicity stunt, it's clear that these two shouldn't be reproducing. I suggest a third option: 
 
 Give that poor baby to a family who would love him or her, care for him or her, and not put his or her life in the hands of Internet commenters who have too much time (and anger) on their hands. If this is the kind of parents these two will be, the poor kid is better off without them. 
 
 How about we try our own democratic vote: should the Arnolds be shot? Vote in the comments section. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Image via Facebook
– Minnesota couple Pete and Alisha Arnold say they're letting the Internet decide whether or not they get an abortion. The couple—who have been posting ultrasound pictures at birthornot.com—say the move is an exercise in democracy. They plan to keep the poll open for as long as Alisha, now 17 weeks pregnant, can legally get an abortion, and claim the results will be the deciding factor in whether they keep the fetus or not. "Give Birth" has 46% of the vote at the moment, with "Have an Abortion" at 54%. There seem to be three possibilities here, Alicia Chen notes at Gawker. This could be an "idiotic prank" by a couple intent on becoming famous. It could be a pro-life stunt and the site is "a confused parable to illustrate the peril of putting an unborn baby's life in the hands of voters." Or, thirdly, the couple are really planning to have an abortion based on the results of an Internet poll. All three options plainly "suggest these people should never, ever raise a kid," Chen writes. Click here for another reaction.