“Siri is making feminists and abortion advocates angry. That means Apple is doing something right,” Brian Caulfield writes for Forbes.
“‘It is disappointing to read that a tool like Siri is missing the mark when it comes to providing information about such personal health issues as abortion care and contraception,’ NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan wrote a letter to Apple Chief Executive Officer Wednesday,” Caulfield writes. “Apple’s Cook responded quickly. ‘These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone, it simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better and we will in the coming weeks,’ Cook wrote.”
Caulfield writes, “Whether or not Siri’s programmers think about women very much, feminists are thinking a lot about Siri. The fact Apple is getting this kind of response means Siri’s engineers got something right. They made people care. With luck, Apple will find Siri in the middle of more conversations like this.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple says Siri’s abortion answers are a glitch – December 1, 2011
Apple’s Siri stumbles over an abortion question – November 30, 2011
When I asked Siri: What’s wrong with Microsoft? She responded by saying: No comment.
I think that would be a good answer for all these fools who want to argue about abortion.
Great one!! I tried it with a slightly different but similar response. Siri said “I would prefer not to answer that.”
I’ve done this a few times, where Siri gives a vague answer and I respond with “Why?”… this time Siri responded with… “I don’t know. Maybe the staff at the GeniusBar can help you with that.”
Awesome… Can’t make this stuff up!!
LIBERALS SUCK. THEY ARE THE PLURAL ANTI CHRIST. WE HATE YOU!!!!!
Sure you do, because JC was all about his followers hating others. Nitwit.
You remind me of someone. Not sure who exactly- oh, I don’t know, could it be…
SATAN?!?
The point I have tried to make is this:
Abortions should NOT be routine.
If you are in need of an abortion, you should be directed to the location of a clinic by your doctor and not by something designed to tell you where the closest latte shop is.
This is not something you do on a whim.
You don’t pull out Yelp! and say, “Oh good, we can go by that abortion clinic after we leave the dry cleaners”
YES. THANK YOU.
Apple’s Siri should not be giving medical or legal advice. It opens Apple up to too much liability. The only exceptions should be emergency rooms and first responder services.
just my $0.02
btw, if you bought 100 RIMM(blackberry) option puts @ $0.02 or a $2 contract x 100 contracts =$200, you would have multiplied your earnings by a multiple of 10 today… in other words $2000.
sorry… just to show your 2 cents was worth a lot today…
I tried it on my wife’s 4s last night, asking “where can I get an abortion”, but when it asked me to enable location services, I got scared that the anti-abortion radicals might try to track me down and kill me.
Your fears are well founded (not being sarcastic). Anti-abortionists are nuts. I’m not sure what Apple’s reasoning is to blocking otherwise safe and legal medical procedures.
they’re not blocking it. re-read Tim Cook’s response above
LOL! Very good point…’cause they seem to be fine with killing adults (death penalty, killing doctors, etc)…Just don’t hurt those unwanted fetuses!!
You sure about that, Craig? Stereotype much? Because most of the pro-life people I talk to against killing doctors. As for the death penalty, I’m not a fan either, but people argue for it in response to a capital offense. Not because it committed the “crime” of existing.
Craig’s logic is kill the innocent and let live the guilty. It was prophecied there would come a time when the good will be bad and the bad will be good.
Craig, you’re walking backwards.
When I asked Siri “where can I get an abortion” it gave me a location for Best Buy. I’m assuming it was referring to the Dell’s they sell there.
LOL! Most of the comments here are too serious.
Well, Rick, I suppose you’re lucky that abortion radicals didn’t track down your mother oh so many years ago and force her to kill you before you first saw the light of day. Had that happened, you wouldn’t be here now to share your insight with us, right?
Eliminating asswipes like Rick would be at least one positive aspect of abortion.
… “abortion advocates”. Fewer than there are anti-abortion radicals. Most of those who favor the availability of abortions to women in need understand that abortion is a “bad choice”, except when compared to the alternatives. A woman forced to contemplate having an abortion seldom has any GOOD choices available to her. And … guys? Maybe you should STFU, eh?
This is the most suplid thing i’ve hear. If feminista and killers (aka abortionist) want to promote they services why they don’t just build their own Siri? Apple is is no way obligated on getting those killers promoted.
Embryos and fetuses are not people under the law, and the people who perform abortions are not “killers”.
Also, please proof read your comment before hitting the “post comment” button.
Fetuses have property rights and are people under the Uniform Probate Code that most states have adopted.
Source?
Yeah…I bought my last house from a fetus. A great deal. You should see the view from my womb.
Actually, as usual you Leftists don’t know what you’re talking about. Almost every state has laws protecting embryos and fetuses, except in the case of mothers wanting to destroy them.
And why is it the mother is “crazy” for killing her children but the father is just a scumbag murderer?
Wow, and you call yourself the Killer Grammaterist. Getting your facts wrong but in perfect English.
(and @aaAttendee too) That still does not make them people under the law. Pregnant women for example are not counted as two or more people for the purposes of a census, nor do census takers visit stem cell research labs and count each embryo as a person. Though I have to admit that it would be interesting if they did since every state would race to fertilize as many embryos as possible so they could get more representation in the House. Pregnant women cannot claim a dependent for the purposes of tax deduction either. Embryos are not issued passports, social security numbers, etc.
And to be precise, I’m more libertarian than “liberal”. I just believe limited government begins in the bedroom and the doctor’s office.
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” -Ayn Rand
Nailed it
Careful. You’ll cause MDNs head to explode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
Um, yes unborn children have legal rights. Killing a unborn child will net you a murder charge thanks to this law. There are also 36 states with similar laws. Kind of ironic since this law gives legal rights to unborn children unless the mother is the one who wants to kill them.
That law would never stand up to judicial scrutiny. It is sort of a moot point, though since the law itself seems to have a specific exemption for abortions, probably because it wouldn’t stand up to judicial scrutiny. The law itself attempts to skirt around the issue of whether or not an embryo is a person under the law, which is why that same article says that legal scholars contend that there is no contradiction between said law and the decision of Roe v. Wade. In other words, it’s another congressional clusterf*ck because congress is attempting to regulate things which it has no business regulating, in this case, the health and medical decisions of women.
Like I said before: Limited government begins in the bedroom and the doctor’s offices. Many conservatives are hypocrites for arguing for smaller government with regards to business, but then argue for the use of the powers of government to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedrooms or doctor’s office.
Let’s deregulate the people’s reproductive health THEN we can worry about deregulating everything else.
Your responses are welcome.
I would say I’m a Christian libertarian. I would love for the government to stay out of my life as much as possible. But I also believe government should protect it’s peoples and those too weak to protect themselves. You can’t start by defining a “person” as someone who survived long enough to be born without it’s mother killing it. My niece was born 17 weeks premature (23 week of pregnancy). That’s still second trimester, where it is perfectly “legal” in many states to abort. However, she’s now a healthy, happy 5 year old girl. You seem to be using “embroyo” as the term for any unborn child – even up to the day of birth? Surely you can’t honestly believe that a child who is one day away from natural birth should still be legally killed by the mother?
I use the term “embryo” because that’s the scientific term for a multicellular diploid eukaryote in the early stages, which is cumbersome to type over and over. In the case of humans I believe the term is valid up until week 9. So I type embryo instead of multicellular diploid eukaryote in the early stages. I’m going to abstain from making any jokes about the oxymoron of “christian science”.
You’re attempting to use moral outrage on late term abortions to make a overarching statement about all reproductive procedures where the woman can choose to end her pregnancy without interference from the government, and the freedom to consult with the doctors who provide advice or procedures for such a decision. Anecdotal evidence is not convincing in these kinds of cases. Embryos are not people. They have never legally been considered people, and christian fundamentalists don’t think through their positions or the legal morass that recognizing embryos as people would represent. If you look at my original post, here are the legal issues that would be created by recognizing embryos as people:
– Do we count pregnant women as two or more people for the purposes of a census? How does the woman prove she is pregnant? And pregnant with only one as opposed to more embryos?
– Do census takers go to places where there are frozen embryos and count each embryo as a person? How do the census takers know that the embryo in question is even human? Do we train them to look under a microscope at each one? And what’s to prevent states from fertilizing as many eggs as possible to try to claim a higher population in an effort to secure more representatives in the House?
– Do embryos count as dependents for tax purposes? Again, how does the woman prove to the IRS (the government) that she is pregnant? Does the government get to ask about her sex life, when she became pregnant, with whom, etc?
– Do we issue passports to embryos? This would require of course naming the embryo so parents will have to name their embryo before they even know what the sex is. And what about the passport picture? I don’t even think you can’t even take a sonogram in the very earliest stages.
Here’s an idea: the above is too damn complex. The government and it’s christian fundamentalist allies need to stay out of my bedroom and doctor’s office, and those of my family.
Funny, I never said I was in favor of banning all abortions did I? I think we should start by banning all abortions in the 3rd trimester. Then ban all abortions in the 2nd trimester. As for after that, I would prefer to ban them all, but I know it’s going to be a hard sell to argue a blob of cells should be protected.
I also saw your original post the first time and I find it extremely ironic that a self-proclaimed libertarian is using one of the most invasive government functions – the census – as a means to support your argument. And I can also answer all of your points quite easily: they don’t need to be applied. We don’t need to count unborn children for the census, taxes, or issue them passports. All we need to do is make sure the mother can’t kill them because they’re an inconvenience from the result of bad decisions. “Unwanted baby” is an oxymoron. There are plenty of families waiting to adopt.
And you never answered my question, implying that you agree with me but didn’t want to admit it. So would you ban any abortions? 3rd trimester? 2nd? Or would you allow them up until natural delivery because of absolutist libertarianism?
As part of being a libertarian, I am also a constitutionalist. The census is mandated by the Constitution. It’s how we allocate congressional districts. There’s nothing invasive about it. Being counted? I can think of a lot of examples that are more invasive both by the government and other private parties.
Either embryos are people or they are not. You can’t claim that they are people and that women cannot do as they please, but then not count them. The census requires that everyone be counted. Thus, if you are saying that embryos are people under the law, they must be counted. And they must be given passports and expectant mothers must be allowed to claim them as a dependent for the purposes of a tax deduction.
Late term abortions are more complicated I admit. But early term abortions? The morning after pill? Those are protected, without a doubt.
Also, were you intoxicated when you made that post? Not that I sit in judgement if you were; I’m on my 3rd scotch. It’s just you began your post by saying “Funny, I never said I was in favor of banning all abortions did I?” and then immediately following with “…I would prefer to ban them all…”
The original intent of the census was a simple non-invasive count of the population. One question: “How many people live at your residence?” is now 9 questions on the “short” form and if you’re lucky enough to get the “American Community Survey” you can answer dozens of invasive questions “required by law”.
I’m glad you were able to admit that late term abortions cannot be defended and should be banned!
Nice try. I said they’re complicated, not that they should be banned. Regardless of what the original intent of the census, like most self-described “christians”, you’ve created an incoherent policy that embryos should be people in terms of telling expecting mothers that they cannot get an abortion, but not people for everything else, e.g. the census.
You can’t defend late term abortion nor have you advocated it, therefore it is a win for me.
We also don’t count dogs or horses or other animals on the census, and yet we afford them certain legal protections. You can’t abuse animals or violently murder them without criminal prosecution, why are unborn children exempt?
No, your purpose was to try to argue that embryos are people under the law. And by your own admission, your goal is to not only ban late term abortions, but all abortions. If you consider getting me to say that that late term abortions are complex, then congrats. But the burden of proof that late term abortions should be banned is on you. Even though they are complex, I’m still pretty sure that the government shouldn’t be involved. In fact your best bet for getting late term abortions banned isn’t through govt. action, but by trying to convince doctors’ associations that it is unethical, much in the same way lobotomies are essentially banned, but not really illegal. Even then you’ll get a more nuanced approach than conservatives are generally comfortable with because you’ve glossed over cases of rape, incest, or cases where there mother’s life would be jeopardized by carrying the pregnancy to term.
Comparing an embryo to a farm animal is a false comparison as animal cruelty laws don’t require the government telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own person. Banning abortions does. If animal cruelty laws REQUIRED under the law that the person take care of the animal, without any other recourse such as taking it to a shelter, I would be opposed to those as well.
The proof is already out there. 3rd trimester babies and even most 2nd trimester babies are viable outside the wound. It sounds like you’re arguing against giving full blown legal status to unborn children, which I’m NOT arguing for so I’m not sure why you keep repeating yourself. It seems to be the only thing you can grasp at. Now if you can’t present any of your own proof against banning late term abortions, I’m done reading your broken record.
Animal cruelty laws is a great comparison because it involves the government telling you what you can and can’t do with your property. Currently most unborn children are treated as inferior to livestock and pets. Are you saying unborn children are common property and can be discarded by the owner? If a mother can kill her baby in the womb, why does being born change anything? Why not let parents kill their kids after their born as well?
Sounds like haha k believes in magic. As in a pre-birth human magically becomes fully human once it is born. Like breathing oxygen is magical. Pretty superstitious if you ask me. I prefer real hard science. Even though I consider myself to be pretty spiritual, I try to leave religion and sectarian arguments out of my reasoning when debating issues like this. People like haha k choose their beliefs based on convenience rather than logic and they often try to bring other quasi-related topics into a debate as a diversion from the core issue. You can’t argue with someone who doesn’t use logic.
I’m too sauced and tired to come up with my own response right now, so I’m going to
Whoops, hit the post button too soon, my bad. Like I said, I’m too sauced and tired to come up with my own answer right now, so I’m going to borrow what someone else said: “”The fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born (based on a number of rationales) and/or only the mother confers rights on the fetus; even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassers – for whatever reasons – through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales); the government is the problem, not the solution, including in this issue; it’s my body and the government should keep its laws off it; people can decide this issue in their private, contractual communities; only voluntary means of convincing a woman to have a child are libertarian; the decision on whether it is murder is based on political power and adult women have more power; it is wrong to force a deformed baby or unwanted child to come into the world.”
(source: http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/)
haha k spouted off drunked nonsense saying “even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassers – for whatever reasons – through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales);”
So some people are more equal than others? One person has a right to live, but not another? One person has the right to liberty, but not another? One person has a right to pursue happiness, but not another? You sound like a Nazi or a slave owner or a sexist or a racist who considers certain humans to not really be fully human and therefore do not qualify for equal rights and murder, slavery and other forms of human rights violations are justified. A true libertarian would logically stand up for equal rights for all people, not just the ones who survived long enough to breathe oxygen.
Abortion is assassination of human life contracted by the mother and in some cases financed through public funds.
Steve Jobs was a progressive Liberal. Most Apple management are progressives. The CEO is Gay. Do you think they consider women in search of this critical and legal procedure somehow unworthy of assistance?
Has Tim Cook publicly annouced his sexual orientation? No?
So why are you assuming that and if so, outing him for political points?
Shame on you.
People who say “shame on you” are so… quaint.
Relax. Tim is likely gay. It’s ok. Are you ok?
I’m okay if you’re okay. Are you okay?
Steve Jobs was so Liberal that he was against teacher’s unions,
Apple Stores being unionized, used conservative business principles, wanted to tear down a ‘historical’ house, shipped his manufacturing business overseas, didn’t drive a hybrid, made his billions off of power hogging toys and movies about families.
Do I think he was a Conservative? No.
But I do think he was a conservative businessman with liberal social views and strong family values.
We used to call people like that ‘moderates’, which was descriptive of good Democrats.
And who gives a flying fornication if Tim Cook is gay?
He doesn’t wear it on his sleeve to tilt people’s views on subjects that have no place in business discussions.
People on the left keep throwing that tidbit in to try to undermine his abilities to the right.
How pathetic.
I beg to differ. At least in Minnesota if you are found at fault in an auto accident, and cause a pregnant woman to lose her unborn child, you will be charged with motor vehicular manslaughter. So you see, the unborn already have rights under the law.
As far as those who perform abortions, I don’t know how they live with the fact that they take an unborn child from a mother’s womb and dismember it purely for profit.
Actually, all that reflects is the states monopoly on violence.
By the way, if the doctors were doing it for profit it wouldn’t be an approximately 300 dollar procedure.
Get over yourself.
I’ll pray for you.
Pray to all the imaginary space fairies you want. There is no god, so it will make no difference whatsoever.
Meanwhile deluded moralists such as yourself will, in between cheating on their wives and being found in bed with male prostitutes and a sack of meth, continue to speak out the side of their mouths on what private individuals can and cannot do with their own bodies.
You’ll pray for me? pffft. Shame on all of you.
You mean like this woman in the ‘backwoods’ city of New York?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/12/01/nypd-manhattan-woman-performed-self-abortion/
Oh, if only Siri had told her where that damnable clinic was….
And what does this have to do with Apple? Why are you here?
Nothing. MDN makes posts like this to elicit posts, so shit, why not?
You sound as stupid as your grammar.
If Apple is putting itself in the position of search engine, which is what it’s doing with Siri, then it has to be a neutral steward of information.
Google experiences the same dilemma, returning results it may not endorse. The best way for Google, Apple, or any search service to disassociate itself with ANY search result is to disassociate itself with EVERY search result. By delivering results via algorithm, it is patently inoffensive.
Obviously, this isn’t a “glitch.” It’s an Easter Egg that will be fixed soon in order to conform to the goal of neutral conduit.
Wrong.
Siri uses other services including Google, Yelp, Wolfram Alpha, etc. to cull information from. Apple is a mere conduit. This is not, as you say, “an easter egg” to be fixed. Apple should just ignore these people.
I understand how Siri works. But make no mistake: Siri is a type of search.
Also, I’m disagreeing with conventional wisdom. I know the official party line is that this is a glitch. It’s not. What’s the glitch? Avoiding results readily available in Google? You just said Siri was a conduit. This actually took some work to make happen… and now will unhappen!
But it IS a glitch. If you’re anywhere other than NY Siri DOES tell you EXACTLY where these clinics are. Why would Apple single out one specific area to restrict the info to. You make no sense.
Saw that one coming a mile away.
Apple doesn’t have a search engen, they just use other’s
I’m far angrier at people who think it is their duty to kill babies who did nothing other than try to live. The baby certainly got no choice in the matter. The choice begins before conception.
Oh my god, I hate to stereotype you, but you sound exactly like the user 2 posts above you. Like you’re from the same small town. In a remote part of the country.
Right, David, ’cause only big town people are smart enough to know that a “fetus” isn’t human until it’s exposed to air. Like a Chia Pet!
This is a blog about Apple. That’s why the comment is remarkably stupid. Poor writing only makes it worse. Well-read people tend to write well. Well-read people are also, well, smart. It’s an indication of one’s thirst for knowledge and one’s overall curiosity about the world around them. What follows is that the more you learn, the more you seek truth and learn to balance.
You sure know a lot.
Apparently arrogance accompanies that “quest” as well, eh David?
That;s the same rationale I use to not treat my herpes. It’s a living organism that had no choice either. I hope all those I infected understand my decision not to tell them until afterwards. I’d hate to take a chance that might take measures to prevent the spread of that “life”. And the good news? All those who didn’t use protection now get to help spread that life AND society gets to help pay for the raising of all those extra kids! It’s a win/win for everyone!!!
Allow me to be nit-picky. HSV (herpes) is not a living organism. It needs a host to survive and reproduce.
What an awful headline. Try it in reverse and see if you’d print it. Not likely. And even with 3 comments you’re got someone calling other killers. Excellent. Moving society forward. Simple point – technology should be neutral.
Nope, wouldn’t print it in reverse. Why? ‘Cause it would suck. It’s good as-is.
Agreed, technology should be neutral. Apple does an EXCELLENT job being neutral. The title is a parody and hits the mark.
No the title is not a parody. It is a quote of a part of the original article…
“Whether or not Siri’s programmers think about women very much, feminists are thinking a lot about Siri. The fact Apple is getting this kind of response means Siri’s engineers got something right. They made people care.”
My take from the article is that the author sees the impact that Siri can have on our daily lives, similar to the way we all “google” for information now. I believe that very soon “Siri” will be expressed just as much as “google” in terms of interacting with the internet and search.
If you followed your own advice several posts up, you would know even more.
If you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything. And I do mean fall.
i don’t believe in the easter bunny, or the flying spagetti monster, and I’ll fall for a pretty girl anyday!
Repent of your weakness in not accepting His Immenseness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Pastafarians the world over are ready to embrace you in the sauce…
I believe in Apple. Isn’t that what this blog is about?
Does this mean “caring” is more important that “market share”? I guess so. When it comes to RIMM, BB, Android — no one cares!
Delusional feminists and their double standards. It’s morally wrong to (allegedly) withhold information about locations of abortion clinics while the murder of a helpless human being isn’t? Hypocrites! In reality, the whole thing has always been about money, and unfortunately, not morals.
For the 10 millionth time, dolt, a fetus is not a human being.
It *may* become one, if everything goes right. Nature aborts a lot more fetuses than doctors ever have. Ever hear of miscarriages?
BTW, you don’t have to be a feminist to have an abortion. Just ask conservative rape victims.
I’d only be a dolt if I were to believe ANYTHING you write is less than arbitrary. I’d be a fool if I were to believe that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Go ahead, ask the next pregnant woman you see if she has anything but a human being inside her.
Your headline is clearly misleading. Rupert Murdock has a job for you.
So, what happens when you ask a Windows phone or Android phone about abortion? No one cares…
This author is correct. When people get upset (on both sides) about something like this, it has become part of the public consciousness.
Bingo.
Information should be available… simple as that. It should have nothing at all to do with anyone’s political leanings. In America we’re supposed to be able to have different opinions, regardless of how much they may piss someone else off. One man’s murder is another woman’s medical procedure… all a matter of opinion, whether you like it or not. To some people, meat is murder (even the Smiths used this a title song on an album…) but to others it’s a juicy steak or lamb chop… or dogmeat stew. Attitudes and cultural beliefs are very different, especially in the melting pot that is America. Siri should not have an opinion on anything political or really on anything at all. Just the facts, Ma’am, please, to the best of your ability to find them for me. No big brother telling you what info you can get me when I ask. If we want freedom, that’s what it’s about.
Apple can control what Siri says, does and searches just as Apple can remove an app from the App Store.
I disagree with feminist that have an opinion about this. Siri nor Apple are offending anyone (unlike some of the posts here).
Simply put, people shouldn’t judge others opinions and people shouldn’t make a moral crime, a privilege. Creation is a gift of life. Fetuses or whatever is still a human with a design and desire to live just like you and me. Just because a mere man with his own desire to live can try to simplify marginalize a life and say it isn’t human “yet” doesn’t obligate others the right to kill.
I don’t take sides on this because it is morally up to the person but if we want to be a civil society we must respect wisdom and morality otherwise we will destroy the fabric of this country and of humanity. In other words, don’t be a hypocrite. If it is ok to kill according to you and that is what you promote then offer yourself first.
The headline is curious. Therefore makes you want to click it. Then the article explains the headline. Well done.
This is the stupidest thing ever.
In addition, when I ask siri where to get an abortion SHE TELLS ME TWO CLINICS NEARBY.
Everyone needs to stop crying
Please. Get a life. If this one piece of tech doesn’t work for you, try another. Or gasp! Look in a phone book!!!!!
Bad logic. The “technology” isn’t flawed here. The problem is that someone clearly tinkered with the search engine results. Rogue employee, likely, who has decided that they know best how to make decisions for others — by removing their options.
Cite your source, please.
Cite fight!!!
Cite! Cite! Cite! Cite! Cite! Cite! Cite!
YeeHaw! 😆
See Citogenesis from XKCD.
oooOOOOOooooh, a conspiracy theorist. Great rebuttal.
David… I was refering to the tech not working…. just that it “did not work” for these people crying foul.
MDN, your post title is not accurate nor is it appropriate.
Click the link to the full article and let me know what the headline says.
I think it’s a great headline. Answered perfectly by the body of the post. What is “inaccurate” about it?
This is stupid.
Agreed.
Feminists, like muslims are always angry about something.
I don’t believe it’s possible to paint yourself into a smaller box than you have just done. Congrats, man!
Wow, why all the anger? Get a life.
What a shallow statement. The publicized kooks have defined a whole demographic. I strongly think you would not like to be characterized by a kook who happens to be a member of an organization you are affiliated with. My position is life begins at conception. I don’t have to be religious to support my decision. The science is enough to sway me. I believe the science should be at least food for thought when defining a position so important.
When did YOUR life begin?
I ask this of many people in these types of discussions to stimulate quiet, internal thought away from the histrionics of the RTL and abortion advocates.
Reply to pablorph
“When did YOUR life begin”
My life began when the unique genetic code of my life was formed in my mother’s womb. My life continued as the code worked it’s will creating my heart and other organs. It gave me grey eyes and blond hair, unlike the dark hair and brown eyes of my parents. As my lungs filled with air the first time and later as my eyes began to see my life continued. The code was not through. I learned to play guitar, I studied programing in college using a level of abilities my genetic code gave me. I became a carpenter eventually, using still more abilities given me by that unique genetic code. I married and became a father, sharing my code with my wife to create 3 new unique genetic codes in the womb.
It is plain to me when life begins. I value it.
I agree that the title is inappropriately snarky. I did a couple of searches for “family planning” and “reproductive services” and got nada for both. When I searched “strip clubs”, “viagra” and “condoms” I got numerous choices all pretty accurately targets to my region and the search.
I then did a number of searches for “contraceptives” “contraceptive services” and “contraceptive centers”. The first two resulted in “I don’t understands”, but the last request resulted in a phonebook-like listing of every medical establishment in the area including chiropractic centers and allergy clinics.
What I think is that Apple is damned if you do damned if you don’t. If you asked it for abortion services and gave an accurate, comprehensive view or where and how to get an abortion locally or elsewhere you can bet the Religious Right would be all over this.
As it is, I think Apple decided to punt and figured there was probably going to be less mouthy froth dropping onto the displays resulting from the Libs than from the Tightie Righties.
So I gotta ask, it often seems like MDN has a definite Right Wingnut bent from time-to-time like, “Feminists and abortion advocates are angry, Apple’s Siri engineers must be doing something right”. A more appropriate and accurate statement would be, “Feminists and anti-abortionists are angry, Apple’s Siri engineers must be doing something right,” but of course that’s not what he said.
So, is MDN Rush Limbaugh in disguise?
joeldm
Atlanta
First of all, that was a quote from the article.
Second, you don’t make a dam bit of sense.
Ah-Ha! I did just click-through to the article and see that was a Forbes title, not MDN’s. Please ignore _my_ last snarky paragraph. MDN’s bent does seem decidedly conservative from time-to-time, but now that I take a moment to think (dangerous ground) I wonder if it isn’t a more Ayn Randish, libertarian, pro-business bent than a socially-backwards, Conservative one?
My apologies, MDN.
joeldm
Atlanta
I am angry, if I ask Siri about Hitler, she doesn’t list the closest Neo Nazi chapter.
Great inside joke “super”mac.
Do you want to know whats worse then Siri not knowing where any abortion clinics are located?
What’s worse is the fact that the parents of those feminists and abortion advocates didn’t know where they were either!
Now I’m pissed about that!
+1 cajillion!
@TowerTone
“We used to call people like that ‘moderates’, which was descriptive of good Democrats.”.
We used to call people like that ‘moderates’, which was descriptive of good reasonable Republicans, back when they existed.
I think that Tim Cooks sexual orientation enterd the conversation up above by someone who was making the point that philosophically neither Jobs nor Cook would have puposely omitted the abortion info from Siri. It was not necessary to mention that info about Cook, and it’s unfortunate that it entered the conversation.
Neither Liberals or Progressives want to undermine Tim Cook in any way. He is definitely a bright and capable person and the right person to be leading Apple into future greatness at this time.
Sorry, but the Republican party has shifted to the left, just as the Democrat party has.
This is what gave rise to the Tea Party.
I prefer a moderate Democrat Party and a Conservative Republican Party.
The Greens can have the rest….
So Dutch if your daughter or wife or girlfriend was raped you woud insist that she continue the pregnancy to birth? Would you also raise the baby and give the baby a loving home?
What if she had an abortion anyway, would you stop caring about her?
Do you really think that you should have any say in a woman’s decision in this circumstance.
If men could get pregnant we probably would not be having this discussion.
couples are waiting over 7 years to adopt in the US often going out of country to adopt. All babies are wanted by someone. Defending the unborn and our elderly only shows a compassionate society. There are thousands of birth right homes to help women in crisis. Abortionists are only interested in profit and it is very profitable. Here is an abortionist that is far more common today than we like to admit: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20028896-504083.html
If a society can not protect it’s most innocent whether that is the youngest or the oldest then that society is truly doomed.
Considering how “unsafe” many abortionists are today such as Dr Gosnell I would be very reluctant to offer directions to the “nearest” abortion clinic. Looking at it only in dollars one would be asking for a huge law suit after a botched abortion recommended by “SIri”.
Is MacDailynews coveting the market for misogynists and anti-abortionists that use Macs? I can tolerate the Mac bias of this site but taking aim at feminists and those who defend women’s right to abort is uncalled for and very inappropriate. A headline like that is at best, misguided evangelism and at worse, trolling.