|
|
|
|
Almost Beyond Imagination: An Internet
"Up or Down" on Life Part One of Three By Dave Andrusko Good evening, and thanks to all our readers for taking time to read Today's News & Views. Part Two is a celebration of the outstanding slate of pro-life leaders chosen by the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate. Part Three celebrates the role of young people in our Movement. Over at National Right to Life News Today (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org), among other items we explain why in light of abortionist LeRoy Carhart's flight from Nebraska we need more protective legislation elsewhere. We also poke fun at how the election has been misread by some. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. I first heard of what can only be described as a bizarre/tasteless/borderline insane Internet poll when a friend called me at work this morning. Her voice was close to trembling and her indignation and bewilderment was almost palpable. "We've been around a long time," she said, "and I thought I had heard everything." A pause. "But I was wrong." With great reluctance she directed me to www.birthornot.com where as impossible as it is to believe a Minneapolis-area couple is actually conducting an online poll, a plebiscite on whether they should abort their almost 18-week-old unborn baby. No, I am not "joking," and there is no evidence (contrary to some speculation) that this is a "pro-life stunt." Much of what follows comes from a phone interview the Internet site Gawker conducted with Pete and Alisha Arnold. The opening paragraph of the account captures what the couple is about (http://gawker.com/5692958/vote-on-whether-this-couple-gets-an-abortion?skyline=true&s=i). "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.'" Beyond the inherent incoherence--moral and otherwise--of having tens of thousands of anonymous people decide whether you annihilate you own child, the Arnolds' explanation for their behavior is strikingly off-kilter. First a little background. We're told they are IT types, both 30, and married for ten years. Beginning in September, Gawker explains, they've posted health updates of the perfectly healthy unborn baby boy whom they'd nicknamed "Wiggles"--along with video and ultrasounds. It's not entirely clear when, but at some point you'd find at the top of the blog a poll asking, "Should We Give Birth or Have an Abortion?" The Arnolds say the deadline to vote is December 7. This is two days before "Wiggles" is 20 weeks, which the Arnolds say is the outermost point at which they could get an abortion. According to the Gawker, "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.'" It gets even stranger from there. The tally yesterday was 46% to give birth to 54% to have an abortion. However, as best I can tell, as of today the "vote" button is gone from www.birthornote.com. They may be because the vote was hijacked twice, following which (according to the Arnolds) a solid pro-life majority of a small number of votes became a pro-abortion majority of a much larger number of votes. However you may still vote by going to http://www.facebook.com/steven.ertelt. Please do! But to return to the story, Mrs. Arnold had miscarried twice before this third pregnancy. In this story and one in the Daily Mail, the couple offers one excuse after another for why they had waited to have children in the first place and they would want a referendum on having an abortion. Clearly both are fighting maturity issues. However if all this weren't crazy enough, we learn that this WASN'T the first time the couple stood ready to ask random people on the Internet for their thumb's up or down. "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," according to Gawker. "When Alisha got pregnant a third time a few months ago, they decided to launch birthornot.com." What else is there to say about the Internet counterpart to the bloody games played two millennium ago in the Roman Coliseum? Two things. First, the Arnolds want to simultaneously lay this decision off on strangers and market this monumental display of gross insensitivity as a pure exercise in democracy. According to the Daily Mail, "They state on the site: 'Voting is such an integral part of the American identity. 'We vote on everything from the best singer on American Idol to who the next leader of the free world will be. 'Wouldn't it be nice to voice your opinion and have it actually make a difference in the real world? Why not vote.'" Second, and more revealing, writing on her blog, Alisha concluded, "I'm not convinced that I want to change the status quo." She adds (unnecessarily), "I feel that as I age I've actually gotten more selfish and set in my ways." |