Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Couple puts abortion decision up to internet vote
Daily Caller ^ | 11/18/2010 | FOX 4 Web Producer

Posted on 11/19/2010 1:01:17 PM PST by kingattax

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — A Minneapolis couple is preparing for the arrival of their first child. That is, unless internet voters decide they should have an abortion instead.

Pete and Alisha Arnold have created a website called, where they’ve been posting updates on Alisha’s pregnancy since September. But this site is unlike any other expectant parent’s blog: this site has a poll that asks viewers, “Should we give birth or have an abortion?”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2evil4words; hoax; oldnews; yesterday
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: Jim Robinson

There are some other sites that say this couple is actually pro-life and this was a stunt to make some kind of point.

Not entirely sure what that point is.

21 posted on 11/19/2010 1:31:18 PM PST by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
BUMP+ The Show

Been there done that.

Very successful.

22 posted on 11/19/2010 1:35:07 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

How about we all vote to just have Alisha’s tubes tied?

23 posted on 11/19/2010 1:42:17 PM PST by peteram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Absolutely sickening!!!

24 posted on 11/19/2010 1:43:26 PM PST by diamond6 (Pray the Rosary to defeat communism and Obamacare!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

I don’t know either, but the fact that FREEPERS who read this thread will have the knowledge that this is some kind of prank or stunt, makes it worth having here to discuss.

25 posted on 11/19/2010 1:45:23 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

The voting so far is about 80-20 to have the baby and 6% of the commenters have offered to adopt if the vote went to abort. I don’t think these people have any intention to abort. It’s an experiment or “stunt”, if you will. Perhaps one of them is doing a research paper.

26 posted on 11/19/2010 1:47:56 PM PST by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Even the DUmmies were unanimously appalled

This always got me about "pro-choice" people. Why is it a "difficult decision" about whether to abort the baby or not?

Either it's a human baby or it's not. If it's not, there isn't any "difficulty" in killing it for the convenience of the woman.
If it is a human baby then killing it is murder.

There is no such thing as the position they try to take-
"I personally wouldn't do it but wouldn't want to impose that view on someone else."

Well, I personally wouldn't kill another human who was inconveniencing me (that guy ahead of me with all the coupons), but I wouldn't impose that moral position on others.
Doesn't make sense at all, does it?

27 posted on 11/19/2010 1:51:08 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
A couple of things to note on this story:

It's been reported that they’ve already lost two pregnancies recently to miscarriage and the mother lost another when she was 20. A normal couple in that position (especially one with no children) would be desperate to see this one carried to term, not cavalier to the point of treating it as some sort of morbid civics experiment.

Pierre "Pete" Arnold, has worked for a right-wing radio talk show and blogged for an anti-choice right-wing Web site.

Putting the URL into Whois to find out the domain registration information revelas two things. One is that they've paid the extra fee to hide who actually registered the site. Two, they registered the site on May 17, 2010. Their story is that she got pregnant and they wanted to put it up to a vote, so they started this site. If that was true, then the very earliest she could be in her pregnancy is 27 weeks, presuming they started the site as soon as they learned. By the time she claims she'll be at 20 weeks--on Dec. 9--she would actually be at 29, and likely higher.
28 posted on 11/19/2010 2:27:31 PM PST by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

I can’t even imagine doing something like this. And yes I sure hope it’s all a hoax. The very idea of making life so cheap that you would gamble on your own flesh and blood’s life. It’s truly sickening.

29 posted on 11/19/2010 2:31:02 PM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kingattax


30 posted on 11/19/2010 3:19:18 PM PST by NoGrayZone (This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. - PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson