'Birth or Not' Couple Never Intended to Have Abortion
The Minnesota couple who created the Birth or Not website confirmed critics' doubts by revealing they created the site four months before the pregnancy and never planned on aborting their baby.
Pete Arnold told CNN that he bought the "BirthorNot" website domain name before his wife Alisha was pregnant to spark debate. He conceded that they never meant to have an abortion.
"My intent is not to deceive people, but at the same point, I do want people to talk about this. This seemed like a pretty good way to further the discussion, because people don't ever seem to want to talk about it for real if there's no name on it, no Baby Wiggles," he said.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The couple bated viewers with stories expressing doubts about carrying the child to the full term. They also posted several sonograms, pictures of a gender test proclaiming Alisha Arnold was having a boy and referring to the baby as "Wiggles."
According to the comments on the couple's site, several people suspected the site's purpose.
An anonymous poster wrote, "Whatever point you're trying to make here, it's only making you look unfit to be parents."
KiKi (last name not revealed) posted, "Nice publicity stunt. What anti-choice organization(s) do you belong to?"
Actually, Pete Arnold is a regular contributor to Race to the Right as well as a regular pro-choice commentator on gossip blog Gawker.
On the site, a poster proclaiming to be Pete Arnold apologized numerous times to God and the internet community saying that he had hoped to make a point through the website, but "the point escapes me now."
Over a million votes have been cast and nearly 75 percent of the votes were for abortion. Many visitors admitted to voting for abortion to see whether the couple would actually go through with it.
Despite claims that the poll is a pro-life stunt, many pro-life organizations are staunchly against the site and its poll.
Rebecca Ng, of the London-based Pro-Life Alliance, commented earlier that the website was "horrifying and objectionable."
"Whatever may or may not be real about this website, the ultrasound of the baby is of a real human being. To think for one minute that his or her experience is going to be determined by those who log on and vote is absolutely spine-chilling," she said.
Many posters agree and have continued to post messages on the site begging the parents to have the child and/or consider adoption.
Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, meanwhile, advised people not to vote at all because the entire concept of the poll was "wrong."
"We are not encouraging people to participate in this vote because the child's right to life is unshakable regardless of what a poll says and it is simply wrong to subject it to vote. We should refuse to make that choice," he said.
