Apple’s Siri stumbles over an abortion question

“Ask Siri, Apple’s virtual assistant for the iPhone, for ideas on where to eat dinner or whether you need an umbrella, and it will deliver helpful localized suggestions,” Jenna Wortham reports for The New York Times. “But try asking it to find a local abortion clinic, and the software turns up a puzzling blank — even in areas that clearly have such clinics. The response in Manhattan is: ‘Sorry, I couldn’t find any abortion clinics.'”

“‘I can’t help but feel that something is rotten in the state of Denmark,’ said one blogger at a site called The Abortioneers,” Wortham reports. “Megan Carpentier, the executive editor at a blog called The Raw Story, noted that Siri users in the Washington area are directed toward antiabortion pregnancy centers in Virginia and Pennsylvania — not the nearby Planned Parenthood. Asking Google the same question turned up ads for seven abortion clinics, two pregnancy centers and an abortion referral service.”

Wortham reports, “Norman Winarsky, who runs a research and investment firm called SRI Ventures and was one of the founders of Siri before Apple bought it in 2010, said… ‘Those answers would be coming from the Web services that Siri is connecting to, not necessarily Apple,’ he said. ‘My guess at what’s happening here is that Apple has made deals with Web services that provide local business information, and Apple probably hasn’t paid much attention to all the results that come up.'”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

116 Comments

  1. Steven Paul Jobs was born in San Francisco on February 24, 1955, to two university students, Joanne Carole Schieble and Abdulfattah “John” Jandali, whom were both unmarried at the time. Steve Jobs was adopted at birth by Paul Reinhold Jobs and Clara Jobs.

    Extrapolate.

      1. I don’t think there is a good reason for an abortion, but Dr. Jasper made me really realize it was just a racket. He was just doing it for the money. He didn’t care about the women. – Norma McCorvey (The once pro-abortion, now pro-life “Jane Roe” of Roe vs. Wade)

          1. Well, I have a friend who regrets her abortion, although she says she made the best decision at the time in her life.

            The fact is kids: Women have choices and will make choices, no matter what anyone else attempts to impose on their lives. Therefore, despite abortion being an awful aspect of human irresponsibility, unintended and unwanted pregnancy is a huge fact of life. Since it’s going to happen, at least allow it to be safe for the mother, as opposed to forcing her to resort to the brutality of a hanger.

          2. Oh yer right! ‘Studies’ show nearly anything…Ignorance is needed to quote them.

            Thankfully God gave us common sense. Hmmm a little human is alive in me. should I kill it because …(insert excuse here…)… ? Even Siri seems to know the answer

      1. That’s why we have police, courts, and jails.

        Thou shalt not kill.

        “If God had been a liberal, we wouldn’t have had the Ten Commandments – we’d have the Ten Suggestions.” – Malcolm Bradbury

          1. There is such a thing as the Christian Left, and we’re against war, against the death penalty, against abortion, but pro-choice as in, don’t legislate against choice, educate against killing.

            1. Being Christian to me means being kind and caring by default. I have no idea why that concept has become political.

              No matter where a person is on the 1-dimensional political scale, if you can’t be kind and caring, then DON’T call yourself a ‘Christian’ please.

              Examples:
              -> Abortion clinic bombers, NOT ‘Christian’.
              -> Pro-war, NOT ‘Christian’.
              -> Pro-wealthy, anti-poor, NOT ‘Christian’.
              -> Pro-promiscuity, NOT ‘Christian’.
              -> Pro-slave-wage-labor, NOT ‘Christian’.
              -> Pro-consumer debt, NOT ‘Christian’.
              -> Anti-human choice, NOT ‘Christian’.
              and blahblahblah. Go brush up on what Yeshua (aka ‘Jesus’) actually taught us.

              All religions are abused for the personal purposes of each of us.

          1. The early Christians would pick up babies left to die on the streets of the Roman Emprire.

            Romans saw those babies as inconvenient and left them to the vultures and wild dogs.

            Christians saw each baby as a person Jesus died for, and made in the image of God.

            1. Kind of my point. This sub-thread veered off topic with First 2010, then 2012’s post about God and the Commandments.

              Jesus and early Christians were compassionate, sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the whole. Entirely contrary to the mentality that the right espouses on social issues.

              To a lot of right-wingers, a person is only useful if they are contributing to someone’s bottom line or nationalistic goals. Why so much compassion for a baby not yet born, yet oppose social programs to help that baby and other children born to poorer families? Do they think orphanages and breakfast programs run on donations alone? Why spend billions on the military, and then cut veterans’ services to save a few million (this is happening under Canada’s very Conservative government)?

            2. Mossman

              Show me where ‘right wingers’ are opposed to helping the needy.
              You can’t.

              But what you WILL show me is our opposition to HOW it is done and for what reasons and for how long.

            3. I’ll throw this right back at you, Towertone, since I never said the right opposed helping the needy, and don’t need to prove what I never said.

              The right are opposed to many tax-funded social programs. I get the reasons for this and why big government is distrusted, and agree there’s a lot of bloat and reason for distrusting big government initiatives.

              However, I did ask this: “Do [the right] think orphanages and breakfast programs run on donations alone?” You didn’t answer it.

          1. There is nothing more alive than a baby human.

            Science and medicine say you are a mass of chemicals & around 70% H2O – but we all know that we are alive. I think you’re missing the role of science and medicine…

      2. Apple needs to stay neutral on this explosive issue. And they do this by following the law. If the services are legal, therefore Siri absolutely should refer to them, and Apple not bow to a vocal minority seeking to undermine the law. They must not fail people who are seeking a valid and legal solution.

          1. It depends on how you phrase the question. In surveys that ask whether abortion should be banned in all circumstances including rape, a majority of Americans say it should be available in certain circumstances.

            1. The flaw with that argument Paul is, courts find that the Constitution cannot be used to limit rights. We cannot legislate away rights. the Constitution is there to protect Minority Rights. NOT impose majority will. Courts back this every time.

      1. Absolutely agree. Glad I wasn’t aborted, either.

        However, it’s too bad that Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, Moammar Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and countless other violent criminals WEREN’T aborted.

        Which is why I think it’s up to the pregnant couple Who am I (or more accurately, the government) to dictate that someone should or should not give birth?

        And for everyone who rallies around “oh, but they could be adopted” solution to unwanted pregnancies…

        I agree with the sentiment BUT here are some cold, hard facts…you know the first two, but probably hadn’t considered the third:

        1) There are millions of abortions every year.
        2) There are thousands, maybe even a million of couples begging to be able to adopt a child RIGHT NOW.
        3) Between #1 and #2, problem solved, right? WRONG. If no adoptions happen this year, are there enough people wanting to adopt the millions of additional children being born?

        Probably not. But even if there are, guess what…there will be the same number of unwanted pregnancies NEXT year, too. Odds are that those same people wanting to adopt NOW won’t be looking to adopt again next year…and the year after…and the year after.

        What happens then? The backlog of people wanting to adopt would VERY quickly be filled, and while there will be *some* who will adopt again next year (plus some new ones), there’s no possible way it will keep pace with the continued pace of unwanted pregnancies.

        1. Part of this line of reasoning is that it is so fatalistic as to be absurd?

          Babies are born destined to be serial killers and despots?
          Babes are born destined to be prophets, innovators and humanitarians?

          Both are not true. It is the values, experiences during the formative years and the choice one makes in life that lead you into one direction or another.

          The reason why I think being pro-life is the superior ethical stance that should be enforced that is no one has the right to take that life of that child based on the POSSIBLE negative that one might do in the world. Never mind the right to live should be a constitutional right.

          1. Wow, nice job on purely focusing on one minor part of the post and ignoring the REAL problem I pointed out in that same post.

            I guess you ignored that part because it’s true, you can’t refute it, and don’t have a solution (yet don’t want abortions, either)? I suppose that’s easier than saying “Wow, you’re right. I hadn’t thought of that.”

            1. Refute what? That because, from your point of view, not enough people want to adopt babies that others don’t want to take care of, we should go on killing babies then? All of a sudden, it’s justifiable? And you’re right, there are not enough responsible people in the world to clean up and pick up after the consequences of the irresponsible people.

              The number of abortions taking place each year is part of a twisted side of the sexual revolution and broken sexual ethics that falsely equated freedom with a lack of responsibility. The mindset that came up with no-fault divorce, and living together before you get married all promote a lack of responsibility, often end up with dead babies.

              To have a real drop in abortion would require a serious societial rethinking of what our present sexual ethics have brought us.

              I’m sure the rate of abortion would fall considerably once we legally require the fathers of the children to provide for the babies they produce, and to prosecute them if they fail. We should also provide resources on campus for women who are pregnant, so as to provide real options for women, as Feminists for Life promotes. Or we can tell people to take responsibility for their actions, and grow up.

    1. To be fair, Jobs was born not because his parents were not able to locate an abortion clinic, but only because they were morally against abortion (unlike Jobs himself, who was not religious against abortions).

      That said, it is good that abortion does not pop up immediately. Because if there are chances that a young woman would have even a little more time to think it over, them a life could be saved.

        1. In the biography, it is very clear that Steve offered to pay for Chris-Ann Brennan’s abortion.

          Someone who is pro-life would have never considered the option, let alone paid for it.

          While he always stated that he was happy his mother didn’t abort him (and instead chose to give him up for adoption), nothing in the book, or elsewhere, indicates that he had changed his position on the issue over the years.

          1. Jobs also stated that he was a much different person back when he was denying Lisa was his daughter.

            People grow wiser with age. That’s why most young people are Liberals and why most older people are Conservatives.

            1. A bit over-simplified. Vast majority of people who slowly shift away from liberal towards conservative thinking with age tend to do it mainly because political conservatives tend to favour lower taxation, allowing them to preserve more wealth.

            2. Predrag,

              If telling yourself it’s all economics makes you feel better, then I understand – Libs are much more about “feeling” than “thinking.”

              For example:
              “We need to stop drilling for oil and go solar/bio-fuel/unicorn tears instead!”

              Do the math and actually think about statements like the one above and you realize how stupid some people are. Unfortunately, one of them got elected president.

              Conservatism is about creating an environment where as many people as possible can benefit. A rising tide lifts all boats. Not about taking from the productive to give subsistence handouts to the unproductive. It doesn’t work. After awhile you learn that fact.

              As you reach a certain age, you realize that logic and pragmatism are much more powerful than knee-jerk, half-cocked “feelings.”

            3. We do need to stop drilling for oil and go solar/wind/geothermal etc. I have looked at the numbers it is possible. It’s not easy. I’ll grant you that drilling for oil is much easier right now because we’ve already figured out and paid for all of the hard stuff. (Extraction, refining, distribution, etc) But very few things worth doing are easy, but the last time I checked, we didn’t get to be a great nation by taking the easy route.

            4. RE: “We need to stop drilling for oil and go solar/bio-fuel/unicorn tears instead!”

              So you’re in the Sarah Palin camp of “Drill Baby, Drill?”

              Hmmm…here are a few little facts for you:

              1) There is a finite amount of oil in the planet.
              2) We’re running out, getting closer every day.
              3) Statistically, if every Chinese and Indian person used oil at the same rate as the US, the world would run out of oil in around 5 years. Have you seen the trends on Chinese and Indian energy use? Increasing at a dramatic pace, so we’ll be there soon. Too soon.
              4) Use of oil causes tremendous pollution
              5) Drilling more will simply make us run out faster.

              No, unicorn tears won’t solve our energy problems, but neither will more drilling. We need real solutions, not exacerbation of the problem.

              My suggestion is to turn off Fox News and try thinking on your own for a change.

              For the record, I used to vote Republican most of the time…lately I’ve been leaning more toward the Democrats because the Republican party has lost its way (and possibly its mind).

              Reagan must be turning in his grave…

    1. “anti-choice” = Pro Life (opposed to killing viable human fetuses mainly for convenience)

      “pro-choice” = Pro Abortion (all for killing viable human fetuses mainly for convenience)

      1. Semantic much? You can’t even distinguish between favoring the availability of a thing and favoring the thing itself. I favor your right to mouth off in public. Doesn’t mean I want to listen to inane moralizing 24/7.

        1. Shouldn;t we just make “regular” murder available, too? I can think of more than a few people without whom the world would be a better place.

          Abortionists’ “arguments” always fail because what they do is wrong. They have no moral, ethical, or logical leg upon which to stand.

          1. Oh, but it is, in many American states. In America, government kills hundreds of people every year. The common euphemism for this murder is “death penalty”.

            Abortion is one of the most fundamental human rights of women to choose what to do with their own bodies. Until men have exactly identical rights and responsibilities as women, society has no moral ground on the issue of abortion.

            1. False equivalency is a common refuge for the typical Liberal.

              4,661 executions occurred in the U.S. in the period from 1930 to 2002 with about two-thirds of the executions occurring in the first 20 years.

              According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50,000,000 legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States.

              Sorry, addled Lib, but 4,661 murderers ≠ 50,000,000 unborn humans.

            2. Utter bullshit, even for you Predrag.

              To offer as a correlation a death of a felon decided by a jury of his peers, many times more than once and with many chances for review to that of an innocent child, mostly because the mother didn’t want the responsibility that went along with her actions is nothing more than moral laziness.

            3. Somehow I had an impression that for the conservatives, every single life is important. How is it then possible to argue that, because there are significantly fewer people your country murders officially than there are pregnancies that are terminated, it is more OK to flip the switch on the old ‘sparky’? Even if we disregard, for the moment, lack of moral standing on abortion, with respect to the rights of women and vastly disparate consequences an unwanted birth has on women vs. the men that impregnated them.

            4. Yes it is for those who knowingly brought death or severe pain to others as a direct result of their actions.

              It is as law to help prevent the reoccurrence of the crimes, whereas the ‘celebration of a woman’s choice’ is encouraging the deaths.

              Could the difference not be more clear?

            5. Always the same fallacious lie: “Abortion is one of the most fundamental human rights of women to choose what to do with their own bodies.” In fact, the ‘choice’ the woman is granted is to decide the fate of a ‘body’ separate from her own – that of a fetus, which is within her body, but which clearly, is not her body.

            6. The deterrent excuse is one of the weakest used to defend the indefensible state-sanctioned (and jury-condoned) murder, as overwhelming amounts of data dismisses such an argument as invalid (no effect on reduction in crime). Much more valid excuse is the human basic need for vengeance (a tooth for a tooth), not that it is any more legitimate.

              As for the right to choose, even in an incredibly conservative America (compared to the rest of the developed world), vast majority of population continues to support women’s right to chose, and are against making abortion illegal.

              While there may be countries in the world where abortion is freely available on demand (and where society may even treat it as just another form of birth control), most of the developed world has morally correct approach towards it, respecting the women’s rights, but making sure the barrier of entry is high enough to force enough forethought when making such choice.

              When you say: “…mostly because the mother didn’t want the responsibility that went along with her actions…”, you reveal the moral weakness of your argument. The action was NOT mother’s alone; to fertilize an egg, a sperm is needed. However, in literally every society of today, the burden, responsibility (moral, financial, social) and consequences of this action fall squarely and solely on the woman. No law ever forced a man to bear the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; indeed, it doesn’t even require him to be identified in such cases. Today’s social and moral values continue to put women in a grossly unfair position and until such position is properly corrected, nobody has moral right to force her to suffer the consequence of an action that was performed by two parties, while that other party faces absolutely no consequences whatsoever.

              Decision to terminate pregnancy must be made difficult to choose, but until every single man who impregnates woman is legally (and socially) required to share in all the consequences of such act, such choice must remain available to women. Otherwise, women will NEVER stand a chance to be equal.

            7. Predrag, all court decisions are based on vengeance, the repayment and punishment for doing wrong.

              Just because a law does not affect the numbers does not mean it shouldn’t be applied. There is no way to estimate what the murder rate would be if society hadn’t at some point decided that it should result in the ultimate punishment, for the act , for the victim and for the survivors. The rate of murder has no affect on whether the punishment is wrong. A certain percent of humans are apparently born with a lack of decency that allows them to rape, kill police and molest kids. The example of what happens to these is death.

              Also, I have said nothing about making abortions illegal. Just don’t make them routine.

              And yes, there are laws for making tha father responsible for monetary support. All too often a woman has in her mind that her actions are not accountable because society has become so relaxed in sex that they see it as a hobby with no consequences rather than for what it really is.

              It is when society says ‘that’s alright, your first choice is to abort, don’t worry’ that we start to lose too much respect for life.

              Yes abortions should be restricted, not encouraged nor a norm in society, but a last choice and a learning experience for those involved.

          2. Please see my earlier post regarding abortions (just search for “Craig” on this page).

            So what do you propose we should have done with those 50,000,000 extra people? Who do you propose should have adopted them? I’ve already illustrated that there aren’t nearly enough people wanting to adopt millions of un-aborted children every year (for the record, I worked as a network consultant for an adoption organization at one point, so I’m well aware of the issues).

            So….perhaps we should force pregnant women to have the child and care for it. Perhaps you think that would be a great solution by infringing on their right of what to do with their own body?

            Fine, let’s throw away their rights! OK, now who’s going to build all of the prisons to house the women guilty of child neglect (since they didn’t want them in the first place), those who had illegal abortions, and those doctors who performed them?

            Who’s going to fund and staff Child Protective Services to the extent that they can house, care, and provide for 50,000,000 people? Or even 500,000????

            Who’s going to pay for the education of those unwanted children? You? Child Protective Services? Get ready for doubled income taxes!!!

            Oh, you’re not going to pay for their education? Great! Let’s bankrupt the US even quicker by putting more people on welfare!!! Let’s increase the crime rates by putting more uneducated people out on the streets (since no one wanted them) to fend for themselves, try to find a job, fail because they have no education or family support structure, then wind up on drugs or in prison.

            Face the facts: While abortion is NOT a desirable option, it MUST remain an option because we as a society have failed to solve the REAL problem, which is that so many unwanted pregnancies are happening in the first place.

            And for all the people spouting religious crap, let me remind you that the Catholic church FORBIDS birth control, saying that abstinence is the only way. Right. Tell a bunch of horny teenagers that abstinence is the only way and see how well that works for you.

            Better yet, here’s an example: Sarah Palin is a HUGE proponent of that view and we see how well it worked for her daughter, Bristol. I’m not picking on Bristol, just saying “teach abstinence” DOES NOT WORK.

            Prevent unwanted pregnancies. That’s the only real solution. Until then, abortion is every woman’s right.

            1. This has to be the most clear, concise post on this page, demonstrating how far the human mind can wander from logic.

              You sir and dis-regard of human life (and logic) is astounding.

      2. Your comment is inflammatory and does not help the conversation about how to encourage (mostly) vulnerable women into not aborting. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. I don’t know any women who are pro-abortion but know a number who are pro-choice.

        Pro-choice is about a woman having control over her body; At the time an abortion would take place, the human fetus is not viable without the mother’s involvement and therefore is not independently viable as indicated in your comment.

        Additionally, should a woman be forced to have a baby if she was raped? What about if a woman is in an abusive relationship and doesn’t want to subject a child to abuses? Where does the rights of mother end and the fetus begin? These are not easy questions to answer and abortion certainly is not an easy decision, however, in the absence of supports for women who find themselves in difficult situations comments such as your over simplify, are inflammatory and do not advance the discussion.

        1. I cannot speak to the ‘supposed’ vulnerability of some 50,000,000 women (and counting) who have ‘chosen, to abort their unborn children, and neither can you.

          If pro choice does not equal abortion, just what does it mean?

          Many late term abortions, up to and including partial-birth abortions, are inflicted on fetuses which are clearly viable outside the womb. And what of the babies that survive the abortion gauntlet and are terminated anyway?

          If a woman is in an abusive relationship, she ought to leave; there are lots of social networks and safety nets available. The last thing that woman needs is the psychological scars and deleterious physical after effects that are often concomitant to abortion.

          The rights of the mother end and the rights of the fetus begin at conception. That wasn’t really such a difficult question, was it?

          Often advocates of ‘choice’ have no interest in advancing the conversation, which is why they employ the ad hominem.

          For some women, abortion is not a difficult choice at all. They embrace not only the choice but justify the choice as their right and have neither qualms nor guilt.

          The ‘rape’ argument is specious unquantifiable and inflammatory, so, according to your rules of debate, it is inadmissible.

          1. I stated that ‘pro-choice’ was not ‘pro-abortion’. The point is that they are not diametrically apposed. My wife, for example, is pro-choice and anti-abortion. The debate seems to be that you are in either one camp or the other when that is clearly not the case for many people.

            It is true, I cannot speak to vulnerability of women who have abortions, however, studies* have shown that 60% of women who abort pregnancies in the United States are below the poverty line. I think that represents a significant enough number to classify as vulnerable.

            I think it is simply obtuse to say that ‘if a woman is in an abusive relationship she can leave’. There is plenty of research done on this subject as well but you can start here** to get a summary as to why women stay in unhealthy relationships.

            Your point about where rights start and end is entirely unreasonable, and considering the laws in most Western style democracies, it would seem that your view point is not necessarily represented as the majority; If the mother is required to carry the fetus, and the fetus relies upon the mother for survival, how exactly can the state impose restrictions on how the mother behaves without taking away her personal rights.

            *http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
            **http://www.heart-2-heart.ca/women/page4.htm

          2. RE: “I cannot speak to the ‘supposed’ vulnerability of some 50,000,000 women (and counting) who have ‘chosen, to abort their unborn children, and neither can you.”

            But you are. You’re trying to argue that abortion should be made illegal, so you’re doing exactly what you said you aren’t doing.

            RE: “If pro choice does not equal abortion, just what does it mean?”

            Um…it means CHOICE. It means OPTIONS. It means she can have it, abort it, have it and adopt it away, etc.

            RE: “Many late term abortions……. ”

            That whole paragraph is a fringe case that constitutes less than 0.1% of abortions. Trying to use a fringe case to argue against abortions in general is like saying “Well, TEN people were convicted of crimes they didn’t commit last year, so we shouldn’t lock ANY criminals up!!” Don’t be absurd.

            RE: “If a woman is in an abusive relationship, she ought to leave”

            Absolutely true. However, you completely missed the point. We’re talking about someone that hasn’t yet made that decision (to leave), yet has discovered that she’s pregnant. It’s too late to leave, so does she subject the baby to abuse, too? Studies have consistently proven that (contrary to what many believe in trying to “fix” their relationship), having a child does NOT bring a couple closer together, but instead adds stress, so things will get worse for her, too. So, should the pregnant woman leave him then? How about father’s rights…he’s still going to get to see the kid, abuse it (at least until she can prove it), and she’s going to HAVE to deal with him for the next 18+ years. BEST case, he stays out of the picture and she’s now a single Mom, struggling to raise her former abusive partner’s baby…that she didn’t want in the first place. I certainly wouldn’t want to be that kid in any event.

            RE: “The rights of the mother end and the rights of the fetus begin at conception. ”

            An absolutely false, ignorant statement, even ignoring the fringe cases of rape, incest, or a fetus known to be malformed. You’re saying she doesn’t have a right to choose how to live her life? Choose to have or not have children? I understand some antipathy toward those who use abortion as birth control, but how about those for whom their birth control failed? “Sorry, you’re spending the rest of your life raising a child you didn’t want, anyway.” Sure is easy to say when it’s not you, isn’t it?

            Quite simply:
            -If you’re anti-abortion, think adoption is the answer, but have never adopted a child yourself, shut up.
            -If you’re anti-abortion and think teaching abstinence to children is an acceptable form of birth control, you’re ignorant and naive, so shut up.
            -If you’re anti-abortion and don’t have other solutions to the unwanted pregnancy problem, please just shut up.
            -However, if you DO have other, REALISTIC solutions to the unwanted pregnancy problem, I’m all ears. Thus far, the silence is deafening.

            1. The simple fact is – if you CHOOSE to have sex and get pregnant you should NOT have the choice to murder the baby.

              You should have to deal with the consequences. A human growing up in less than perfect situation is better than not even being given the CHOICE to live in those conditions.

              You are taking away the choice of one (the baby) for the mother.

  2. In order to help anyone who’s confused, I’ve translated portions of Wortham’s article from Cloistered Manhattan Liberalism into Common Sense English:

    “But try asking Siri to find a local murder for convenience butcher, and the software turns up a puzzling blank — even in areas that clearly have such murder parlors. The response in Manhattan is: ‘Sorry, I couldn’t find any murder for convenience locations.’”

    “‘I can’t help but feel that something is rotten in the state of Denmark,’ said one blogger at a site called The Baby Murderers. Megan Carpentier, the executive editor at a blog called The Raw Story, noted that Siri users in the Washington area are directed toward anti-murder, pro-life pregnancy centers in Virginia and Pennsylvania — not the nearby U.S> taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood which, in 2009, the latest figures available, performed 332,278 abortions, from which it derived $164.154 million. Asking the soulless Google the same question turned up ads for seven murder for convenience butchers, two pregnancy centers and a murder your baby for your convenience referral service.”

    1. Speculating on potential greatness is as pointless as asking how much money the labels and studios could have made if not for piracy. Their dollar figure exceeds the GDP of the entire planet, which is of course complete BS.

      To turn this around: Too bad they didn’t abort Hitler, eh? Or Stalin?

      (Yes, I’m deliberately Godwinning this entire discussion)

      1. yea, just like speculating on whether the stimulus saved us from a worse economic disaster.

        No doubt, great people were aborted, just like no doubt there are other worlds. The numbers support our probable loss of great souls.

        BTW, googles Godwinning and no results. Is that a new word?

        1. To “Godwin” a thread is to bring Hitler or Nazis into the discussion to bolster your argument. This usually causes those opposed to your argument to respond with emotional or personal attacks, turning a rational discussion into a pissing match and making further participation pointless. IIRC this was pointed out by someone named Godwin back in the Usenet days some 20 years ago, when real names were still used online, that’s why the effect is named after him. It used to be recognized that whoever invoked Hitler/Nazis first, had lost their argument. These days people aren’t smart enough to avoid responding to trolls, and so no “loser” is recognized.

          The effect doesn’t apply if the actual topic involves Hitler or Nazis, naturally.

          Of course, these days it doesn’t have to be Hitler or Nazis to derail a reasonable discussion. Just introduce hot-button issues–right vs left politics, abortion, global warming… hell, this entire article could be considered Godwin’ed from the start, if the effect weren’t specific to Hitler/Nazis.

  3. Cam i say : hit whore ?

    Ask Siri a loaded question and, no matter the answer, you have a hit article to publish.

    Had it found abortion clinics, the article would have been about how Apple supports or promotes abortion. No win situation

  4. Apple promotes life however inconvenient it may be, Google promotes needless death.

    If this was intentional I’m even more proud to be an Apple shareholder.

    “I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life.” – Jack Nicholson, a product of an unplanned pregnancy

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.