Birthornot takes pro-choice to the extreme, but not in a good way

In what is possibly the most egregious use of an Internet poll to date, a couple from Minnesota is allowing people to vote on whether or not the woman should have an abortion. The simple fact that this couple is holding this poll, on the site, already places them well within the category of people who should never have children. Here are some other straight-talk reasons why they should have an abortion and save that poor sap from a life with parents who would mock his existence for publicity.

With a blog where you can see ultrasound photos and read a bunch of ramblings from a pregnant woman about the wonderfulness associated with babies -- as well as a litany of ranting from commenters on both sides of the issue -- this couple brings up an intriguing moral question: On what basis should one decide not to have a child if all the typical reasons like we're not ready, I just don't feel like it and/or fuck that don't apply?

There is the population crisis issue, wherein it is just a tiny bit selfish and irresponsible to have a child versus adopting in a world where resources are becoming increasingly scarce and millions of children suffer from malnutrition, neglect and abuse.

If you want to avoid the larger moral issue that no one seems to care about, then there aren't many personal reasons to vote for the abortion, like the father is a criminal or the mother is addicted to cocaine, except for the fact that they are doing the poll in the first place, and also that their eating habits will no doubt be passed to their son and cause health insurance costs to rise for everyone. Do we really need another obese kid in this country?

Thankfully, some people have offered to adopt the child if the vote swings to the abort side, which doesn't really make any sense because if they aborted it, there would be no baby to adopt, and if they kept it, why would they put it up for adoption? Still though, at least that way the kid would have a chance at not developing diabetes.

The website obviously has a pro-life leaning, and Gawker reported the father has some history with pro-life organizations, but they aren't exactly anti-choice leaning either because, well, their whole concept is supported by having the option to choose. And they're giving that choice to you -- sort of. They reserve the right to still make a choice opposite of what the poll determines -- which undermines the whole concept -- and it's pretty obvious that they have no intention of aborting, which means voting for the abortion would be worth it just to mock them, which by the way, 4chan has already done. Thank you, 4chan.

What they are doing is making a weird, convoluted statement about the abortion issue in the states. That statement being, women should have the right to choose not to choose, but to have anonymous Internet users choose for them, whether or not to have a child that they obviously have already chosen to have. In other words, women should have the right to use their pregnancy as a hackneyed publicity stunt. December 7 is the last day to get your voice out on this crucial issue. Vote no, or suffer the consequences of a guilty conscience.

Stay tuned for a potential follow-up seventeen years from now, when we interview the kid who we argued should never have been born. Talk about awkward.

KEEP WESTWORD FREE... Since we started Westword, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Denver, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.
Ben Dayton
Contact: Ben Dayton