“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.]
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.
Yep. My Dad was adopted too.
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)
A classic example of FUD.
Oh, and are you aware that extensive studies have shown absolutely no validity to the “psychological consequences” nonsense?
Where did you go to have your common sense removed?
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.
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
Murderers and criminals were also born.
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
Death penalty. Are you for or against?
Against. We have more than enough $$$ to let them rot in a 10×10 cell until they draw their last natural breath.
I also oppose cable TV for convicted felons, too.
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.
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.
+100500
Tell me, what are your feelings on capital punishment?
and war.
Against capital punishment, Against war unless there is no other viable option (see WWII).
Taken from Bradbury’s book recounting his extensive conversations with God.
Obama is NOT a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare… you’re thinking of Jesus.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
The God that Christians came to follow had moderated and was far more progressive than He was during the Exodus.
By today’s standards, Jesus be an extreme left-wing socialist.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
If Jesus hadn’t been a liberal we wouldn’t still be talking about him.
CINO or RINO, take your pick. I don’t see how you can be both without being a hypocrite.
You can’t kill a fetus since it is not alive. It’s a matter of science and medicine, something about which a Republican is generally clueless.
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…
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.
I challenge you to quantify your statement. My understanding is that pro-life is the majority, not the minority.
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.
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.
I’m Glad Steve Jobs wasn’t aborted. Arn’t you?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Prove that Jobs was not pro-life or that he was pro-abortion.
Your penchant for unsubstantiated claims does not go unnoticed.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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…
Hopefully Apple isn’t caving to anti-choice loons in this instance and it is as the Siri founder mentioned.
“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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
No baby butchers?!? Then where will get my freshly slaughtered baby? I guess my kids will start to grow and hope that Maury can prove they aren’t my kids.
Hmmm, I like babies, but I couldn’t eat a whole one.
Maybe they should just search for “infanticide” or “baby murderer for hire”–that would be the more correct terminology, right?
I wonder how many great people have been aborted. This world could use many more great people.
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)
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?
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.
Maclouie,
See, e.g., Godwin’s Law, etc.
Hey, I’m glad Steve Jobs wasn’t aborted. Arn’t you?
YEah, we read that above. Skip the repetition please.
Uh, oh… Looks like the middle schoolers have taken over here.
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
Hit whore for sure. First off, nobody is going to call their family planning, women’s health center an ‘abortion’ clinic. Give me a break.
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
Siri, I have captured a Jew, where is the closest Concentration Camp?
“I frankly don’t care if you agree with my stand on abortion. I take that stand because no other stand is consistent with decent principles.” – Alan Keyes
GOP: Supporting your right to life, until birth.
Snap!
Boy, all of you need to STFU. Left wing/Right wing idiots, SIRI is not set to anyone’s political agenda or set against it. The obvious seems to escape all. Abortion clinics do not use the word “Abortion” in their name or their identifying metadata. Anti-abortion services do. Get over yourselves and stop making everything about your beliefs.
What he said.
What the hell do people want, a coupon?
It’s abortion! Even under the most needed circumstances (and I know they exist) it’s a horrible thing, exceeded only by people who give it no thought.
It is NOT routine, and to treat it so is to belittle life.
It may be a necessary evil, but it is NOT something to be celebrated.
To prove this is not a liberal/conservative thing, I am with TowerTone on this one. Abortion is an ugly thing and should not be used as a form of birth control. It does diminish the importance of life in general if it is used in such a manner. Having said that, it is a necessary evil. Being a biologist, I view an abortion in the early stage of life is not ‘killing’ a baby but rather a developing mass of differentiating tissue that cannot survive on its own. I am more concerned with the attitude and think that serious councilling should be involved. After that, then access can be given.
And spare me any comparisons about cap punishment of serial killers. To do so is such stupid. These are defective, un-repairable animals. I used to be a bleeding heart liberal a long time ago on that issue…then one day something interesting happened. I had kids. My attitude changed overnight. If someone ever hurt that small innocent child, I would have no problem at all throwing the switch on ‘old Sparky”. Hell I would flick it on and off just for the fuck of it.
Amen and thanks.
How very interesting! Buster, you say you are a biologist and you hold the view that an abortion in the early stage of life is not ‘killing’ a baby but rather a developing mass of differentiating tissue that cannot survive on its own. I would agree that a fetus is genetically distinct from its mother. When you say that it cannot survive on it’s own you are conceding that a fetus must be alive to begin with. One life is dependant on another. So a fetus is a genetically unique, living human person at an early stage of development. But you say that ending this life is not killing even though you also say that a fetus is alive and a genetically unique person. If a fetus is genetically unique, it has its own body and is not THE body of its mother but it is in a limited way a very small PART of the body of the mother in a symbiotic fashion. I am not a biologist by trade so I can not comment on the interface between a baby and its mother. I don’t think that the baby – mother interface matters in this argument at all. I would agree to the common argument that women should have the right to do with their bodies as they please, but a fetus is clearly not the body of the mother, but rather, in the course of normal human development, RELIES on the body of the mother (though fertilized eggs and fetuses can survive outside of a mother at certain stages of development as science has shown us). So a fetus = a baby = a person. One person should not have the right to kill another person, simply because the second person depends on the first for nourishment or shelter. Dependence on another person for nourishment and shelter should not make a baby less of a person. Being inside of a womb should not make a fetus less of a baby than a baby who lives outside of a womb. Legally speaking killing another person is called murder. Murder is not a necessary evil.
You say that abortion in the very early stage of life is not killing a baby. How early a stage? At what point does personhood begin? What are the requirements to be considered living? Is a fertilized egg living? Is it a single living cell with all of the genetic information required to construct a fully developed human being, given enough time and materials in a conducive environment? Is it genetically distinct from both of its parents? What are your criteria for determining what constitutes a human life? At what point do you consider a fetus to be a living human? At what point is not ok to kill a baby in its mother? At what point is it ok to kill a baby in its mother? Underwhat circumstances is it ok to kill a baby living in its mothers womb? What justification can you make for killing a baby? Has the baby done anything to deserve death? Is it ok to kill someone if they are the product of rape? Is it ok to kill someone in order to save their mothers life? Why do babies have the legal right to life if they exist outside of a womb but they don’t have the right to live if they are still inside the mother? Do babies magically become living human beings upon their first breath of air? Is breathing air independently are pre-requisite for being considered a person? Are babies hooked up to breathing machines somewhat less human, less alive than those with fully developed lungs capable of independent breathing? Should all people be considered equal? Should we all have equal rights? Should some people be considered MORE EQUAL than others? Should people be allowed to legally CHOOSE whether or not to kill someone else? Should people be allowed to seek help in killing someone else? Would this be considered conspiracy to commit murder? Would it be considered pre-meditation? Should people be allowed to offer their “services” to help someone kill someone else so that the murder can be commited in such a way as to not harm the person requesting the murder? What would you call such a person? An assasin? A person who has taken a solemn oath to do no harm? What about the people that funded such an “operation.” Would they be considered complicit? Would you give money to an organization that helped fund murder? Would you buy products and services from organizations who provided support or donated money to other organizations who provided murder services?
Here is what I believe on a scientific and rational basis:
Abortion is not just murder. It is pre-meditated assasination by a “doctor” at the request of a mother and paid for in some instances to some degree with taxpayer money.
Have I made any partisan statements in my argument? Have I made any sectarian or religious statements in my argument? Have I attempted to make my argument based on scientific fact, used clear consise logic and based on basic ethics? Have I stayed on topic and not brought up other issues regardless of how other issues might relate to this one issue?
I will make this one political statement which I firmly believe is valid based on everything I have presented here. Abortion should be illegal. Everyone should have an equal human rights.
Didn’t anyone read Freakonomics?
Why do people treat that book like it’s the new Bible, just because it’ so contrarian to conventional thinking?
It has its own flaws.
I will see your Freakonomics and raise you a Steve Jobs, Jack Nicholson, Eleanor Rosevelt and Jesus Christ.
RIP Dr. Tiller. You left earth too early. Your work was not complete.
I’m an adoptee, who has family members and friends who have kept children they weren’t prepared to raise properly, given up children for adoption and had abortions.
It was always a heart rending choice. No one mouthing off here has the absolute wisdom to say what was the Right Choice for any of those people given their unique situations.
The explanation is a lot more simple. Apple’s local business search is just not as sophisticated as Google. When you type in “abortion clinics” it does not find “Planned Parenthood” because the word “abortion” is not in the listing. It does find the anti-abortion clinics because the word “Abortion” is in the name. (Even though it’s in “anti-abortion”)
Humans aren’t really all that important in the grand scheme of things anyway. We’re just another creature with immense potential and incredible flaws. I hope every single person that is opposed to abortion is a vegetarian. Why do animals deserve to be killed for your sake, but a free-willed woman has no choice once an egg has been fertilized in her womb? There are 7 billion people on our little green and blue Petri dish. Get over yourselves and focus on making your lives and those next to you better and less time trying to control other peoples lives based on your superstitious dogma.
Abortion is a woman’s choice. I am a man. I have no say, one way or the other, over wether it is right or wrong.
Men are involved but women are responsible for the consequences.
Siri… She has chosen life by not giving out information on baby killer doctor clinics. She is Pro-Choice and she Chose Life! Another selling point!
so you don’t vote? And happy to stand by as others kill, abuse, terrorize? Why so happy to sit on the sidelines with this issue?
Sure the woman has the ultimate say / responsibility but don’t kid yourself. To vote / do nothing against murder in the womb you are partially responsible for allowing it.
You are are all wrong, I just asked Seri the abortion question and was given directions to one a few miles from me. Apple could have fixed this, or people need to speak clea
Roy.
Abortion rocks!
But you’re here and living! It can’t ‘rock’ too much. I’m glad you were allowed to be born.
Siri should be programmed not give any medical or legal information. How about if some programmer makes a mistake and Siri reports that smoking is great for your health….
Anyone see a lawsuit coming?
just my $0.02
One uterus, one vote.
Women weren’t legally considered ‘persons’ and were the property of their husbands and therefore ineligible to vote up until the early 20th century. Funny how things work out.
You mean ‘in the USA’. Unfortunately, universal suffrage isn’t universal.
I’m happy I wasn’t killed at birth and I’m happy that Steve Jobs was born rather than killed.
For what it’s worth, killing you at birth would have been murder. However, if your mother had terminated her pregnancy after which you were born, you wouldn’t have ever existed. You can never kill someone who doesn’t exist.
As mentioned above, the existance of the embryo that eventually became Steve Jobs was never in question. His birth mother decided to give birth as soon as she discovered she was pregnant. If we really need to beat this horse, we could simply say we’re happy that his biological mother made such choice when she did. Keep in mind, women had been having their pregnancies terminated forever. It was only recently that majority of the developed world had developed the moral fortitude to recognise it as an important woman’s right to choose. Most women actually do chose life, nonetheless, but the choice is still ultimately theirs to make.
I’d have a lot more respect for conservative opinions if they weren’t so inconsistent and hypocritical, for example, in the case of this argument, if they cared about the living as much as they cared about the unborn… George Carlin explains better than I (and is more entertaining too!):
OMFG! I LOVE IT!
George Carlin was ficking brilliant!
I guess that hypocrisy can go both ways
Do you really believe this ‘argument’ ?
Some people might not want to support the baby so let’s kill it before we see it and try to convince ourselves it’s not yet human.
Just because someone is funny doesn’t make them clever or right
They’re also inconsistent on the basis that they believe in de-regulating everything… except what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom or doctor’s office, which to me is the most invasive type of regulation.