Couple wants public to decide: "Should we have an abortion or not?"

Meet the potential parents - Pete and Alisha Arnold, both 30. After three miscarriages they are expecting their first baby, unless you - the public - vote to have the foetus aborted.

On their website Birthornot.com, they invite us all to make the big decision for them: "You can vote and choose whether we abort or keep our unborn child," the website states.

So who are these people? Pete and Alisha are both 30-years-old, they have been married for 10 years, they own their own house, have two cats and both work for tech companies in Minneapolis.

Since September, the couple have blogged about their expected child and posting health updates about the mother and the foetus (which will be 17 weeks-old tomorrow), adding ultrasound pictures and video.

At the top of the blog is a poll asking the question: "Should We Give Birth or Have an Abortion?"

Currently "Give Birth" has 48 per cent of the vote with "Have an Abortion" at 52 per cent. The poll closes on 7 December.

They'll have two days to make a decision before the 20th week of Alisha's pregnancy ends, and, with it, her last chance to get an abortion. The poll will influence their decision heavily, the couple said, 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."

So is this a prank or is it real?

It beggars belief that anyone in their right mind would give a bunch of cynical web users the power to make such a sensitive and personal decision such as this.

But when asked if this was a prank the Arnolds' said that it was not and they also deny that this is some sort of pro-life stunt.

Pete, who described himself as a Libertarian, framed the couple's majority-rule abortion as kind of an extreme civics lesson that he hoped would bring the abortion debate home.

"Voting is such an important part of who we are as a people," Pete said. Here's a chance where people can be heard about whether they are pro-choice or whether they are pro-life, and it makes a difference in the real world."

There is an obvious flaw to this argument as people who are pro-choice aren't usually in favour of abortion over birth, but rather in favour of a woman's right to choose what of the two options she would prefer.

Here at Current.com we can't help to think that this smells a bit like a dubious campaign for the pro-life camp rather than an attempt to encourage a nuanced debate about abortions.

To add to our suspicions Pete said he's a non-practicing Catholic, while Alisha is a Methodist. And although the Arnolds describe themselves as political independents with Libertarian leanings, Alisha likes super conservative Fox newsman Glenn Beck on Facebook, and a Google search turns up an old pro-Bush comment Pete made on CNN. (Pete said he voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004.)

In their bio you can see that they married at the age of 21 after only being engaged three months, something which is more common in a religious or conservative family than a liberal one.

And if they have actively tried to get pregnant but lost two children due to miscarriages, why would they even hesitate not having this child?

If they are not pro-lifers on a mission then one has to ask if they are fit to parent their son (recent scans show it's a boy) anyway? As if this child is born, he will one day be able to go online and see their (lack of) reasoning behind their decision of letting a bunch of strangers on the interment decide if he should have been allowed to live or not. Perhaps not the best start to a good parent-son relationship.

If this is just a media stunt for the sake of getting some attention, may we be the first to say congratulations - it worked, but also tell them that not all publicity is good publicity.