The Power of the Internet vs. The Power of Stupidity

Bizarre news isn’t exactly groundbreaking, but it is when it involves a Minnesota couple who have put the future of their family and an unborn child in the hands of the internet.

Pete and Alisha Palmer of a suburb outside of Minneapolis are trying to decide whether to abort the 17-week old fetus or keep the baby and raise him as their first son. Rather than turning to each other, family, close friends and/or a spiritual advisor to guide them in their life-changing decision, they’ve instead decided to put the unborn child’s fate to a vote. On BirthOrNot.com, the Arnolds have posted a poll to the public to decide if they should keep their baby or not. As of last week, the vote is pretty evenly split between giving birth and having an abortion. The Arnolds also claim that the poll results won’t be binding; rather, they’ll take them into consideration when making a final decision.

Perhaps most interesting is the history of the Arnolds and how they came to purchase the BirthOrNot.com domain. After experiencing a miscarriage about 18 months ago, the Arnolds got pregnant for a second time and bought the domain BirthOrNot.com. They were in the midst of trying to decide whether or not to launch the site and put the baby’s fate to a vote when they suffered another miscarriage. Karma, much?

My personal opinion is that if these would-be parents are willing to put the future of their unborn child in the hands of strangers, they should probably have an abortion as they clearly do not value the life of their son. Regardless of whether or not the pro-life public sees this as an opportunity to save a life, these people are clearly not fit to be parents. What do you think?

[In related news of online stupidity, a Russian performance artist (on the lam from authorities) recently put his fate in the hands of internet voters. In a performance titled “Ally/Enemy,” (also translated as “Friend or Foe”) artist Oleg Mavromatti strapped himself to a homemade electric chair and the public voted on whether he was guilty of his crime (“inciting ethnic, racial or religious hostility” due to a performance where he was “crucified” by assistants driving nails into his body). If the majority of online voters found him guilty, he would have met his maker on November 14. An “innocent” vote was free of charge; whereas a “guilty” vote cost $0.50 payable via PayPal. The verdict: The internet voting public deemed Oleg innocent last week, though Oleg promises the “performance” to continue online. Oh, the stupidity.]

Posted by Amelia

Posted By: marlo marketing

Comments are closed.

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Subscribe to m.blog