No, No, Really! Think About It!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/technology/20amazon.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1142974815-+vu3u5MIMN47IHfYUfBn2g
no really, have you considered adoption?
Instead of making up your mind and deciding what you think is best right now, why not spend the next nine months coming to term, becoming attached to the thing and then make the agonizing decision to put it in the hands of what could be a loving couple, or a bunch of deranged religious freaks set to brainwash the puppy from the moment they get their hands on it?
You would already be thinking about the child that could've been anyway, why not add the frustration of not knowing where the child is and who he could be?
posted by the beige one @ 1:02 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
I have a knee-jerk reaction to knee-jerk reactions, which this kinda seems to be (on your part, not the people that compalined in the story).
Call me naive, but I tend to accept the Amazon's reps answer. The fact that the terms would be linked by customer habits and spelling. And, think about it, it makes sense that those people searching for abortion would be far more likely to also search adoption than those people searching adoption would be to also search abortion. If I wasn't able to conceive but wanted a child, I'd be looking at adoption but not abortion.
That being said, I think Amazon did the right thing oncethe situation was pointed out. Again, I accept their explanation, and can't really see as how a pro-life agenda would be a good business decision on Amazon's part.
As for your mini-rant - while I don't think, as has been attempted through legislation, that women seeking abortions should be forced to consider adoption information, but think you have gone WAY overboard denigrating adoption as an option. Sure, it would be a damn hard choice to make, but the fact is there are good couples in this world that want children and would make superb parents, and yet aren't able to conceive. I'd admire the sacrifice of any woman able to give a child into a healthy, receptive home.
Not sure I see what here got you so fired up? Or did you just need to get a post out to shut me and Fuquad up?
Option b, Jackass, option b.
But seeing as my real opinion will be asked eventually, let's kill that baby now (absolutely no pun intended):
I do consider adoption to be a very reasonable option for the young woman in trouble.
However, if that young woman has made up her mind that abortion is her answer, and she's no longer on the fence, I don't think she needs to be reminded that other options exist; especially at a place like Amazon.
She will already be facing plenty of that in the real world.
re: this post, caustic is the tone searched for.
re: Amazon, I don't know, nor care whether it was intentional or not.
Why don't you care if it is intentional? Because, I agree with you that once a decision is made (a slippery point to identify) then the options don't need to be re-laid out, but feel that in this case that was an unintentional juxtaposition, and one which was cleared up once it was pointed out.
Much as I felt that Wal-Mart didn't intend to call black people apes.
And funny that you, with whom I have sparred over whether intention matters, and who tends to side with "if it wasn't intended, the reading ain't vaild" (roughly), would say that intention doesn't matter here.
Seems to me that finding meaning in this juxtaposition is roughly equivalent to finding racism in King Kong.
How do you decide when the intention matters?
boy, you're set on getting me riled up, aren't you?
Why don't you care if it is intentional?
Quite frankly, because I don't care about this story! I seriously doubt anyone intended on making this happen, but this is what happens when you set bots to notice and play on "customer habits," which I find creepy - though has little, if anything, to do with the story.
I wrote what I frackin' wrote because I thought it was funny. End of story, bub.
Much as I felt that Wal-Mart didn't intend to call black people apes.
WHAT? Bwahahahaha! send a link!
The Wal_mart deal was mentioned in the article. Folks that searched for a box set that included a MLK Jr biography were given the suggestion for Planet of the Apes.
Now, the creepiness of suggestion bits - that would make a good post.
Not "bits." Bots.
And Wal-Mart. Not Wal_mart.
well, it'd have to include the onward lemming-like march toward a cash-less society...
does anyone think this would change anyone's mind?
Can I get a woop-woop?
I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like.
'Course, she had a doped-up c-section because she was afraid of the pain of childbirth, but, like, whatever.
Why do I know these things? Wife leaves US Weekly in the can.
If it hasn't been done already, someone should collect the alternatives that the spell check gives when they're hilariously innapropriate (or appropriate, I guess). I can't remember more than one--but whenever I type "Lexipro," my current choice in anti-depressant/don't kill all the fools meds, the spell check suggests "Lucifer."
huh...this article is really interesting...I hadn't heard about this at all.
--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home