BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should abortion services be advertised?

12:11 UK time, Thursday, 20 May 2010

Marie Stopes International will advertise its abortion advisory services on television, for the first time in the UK. Is advertising of this kind acceptable?

The organisation says it will raise awareness of options available to women facing an unplanned pregnancy, including abortion. The ads will be aired on Channel Four at 22.10 on the 24th May and run until the end of June. Viewers will be asked, "Are you late?" and advised to call the Marie Stopes' 24 hour telephone helpline.

Pro life groups say they are considering challenging the decision in the courts. A spokeswoman for the anti abortion group Life called the decision to give abortion providers the same rights to advertise on TV as car companies or detergent manufacturers "grotesque."

Do you agree with the decision to allow these adverts? Have you had difficulty finding information on your options when facing an unplanned pregnancy? Where should abortion providers be allowed to advertise their services?

Link to Marie Stopes International

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 5

  • Comment number 1.

    No. This has gone too far. By all means allow abortions to those who choose to have them, but advertising them just sends the message that reckless, unprotected sex has no consequence.

  • Comment number 2.

    Won't some people find it offensive ?

    Its funny how you are allowed to offend some groups of people and not others in this country !

  • Comment number 3.

    As long as it isn't being advertised as an alternative to contraception then I don't have a problem with it. Women should know all the options and while abortion is hardly a pleasant process it is an option none the less.

    The pro-life groups need to get a grip of themselves, this is about making informed decisions.

  • Comment number 4.

    If the government would just accept my proposal to spike all school dinners with contraceptives, none of this would be neccesary.

    On the whole teen pregnancy subject, I honestly believe there would be a lower rate if the right wing press stopped banging on about what a brilliant life single teenage mums have, and how they get an absolute fortune in benefits and a free house.

    They've done more to advertise single-motherhood as a lifestyle than any amount of playground talk could ever achieve.

  • Comment number 5.

    Bit much isn't it. I'm sure people know the option of abortion is avaliable anyway!

  • Comment number 6.

    As for Abortion, maybe if we actually started prosecuting under age couples. Instead the press seem to praise such individuals granting them publicity.

    I would also support withdrawing state support for underage familes. I.e. the free houses and benefits etc.

    Pregnancy between unmarried or underage couples used to be socially frown upon, unfortunately now its the norm.

    at 13 you can give life, take it away but you cant vote. The right to give life should be given to those who are financially able to support it. Sorry but if you cannot support yourself, you shouldnt have children. Its unfair on the child.

  • Comment number 7.

    No these adverts should not be shown on TV. I agree with a womans right to chose, but I disagree that these adverts are appropriate for TV. Adverts for proper contraception and sexual health care should be shown instead. We need to educate people of the consequences of their actions and not tell them that it's ok to 'accidentally' create a new life and they have it removed like an annoying wart. We have never be strong enough in this country to tell people to stop and think about what can happen when you are careless and have unprotected sex, but we are now willing to show them that an abortion is an 'easy' way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Better not to create this baby in the first place than have an abortion and deal with the consequences of that.

  • Comment number 8.

    If services advocating abortion are to be advertised, will services objecting to it also be allowed to advertise? Having one without the other suggests bias in the advertising laws.

  • Comment number 9.

    Why not, if we can put trash like eastenders, celebrity dancing and x factor on tv.

  • Comment number 10.

    I am not against abortion so am not disgusted by the idea. Since this is an advisory service it isn't such a big deal thing.

    However we should be careful about giving profit making companies too much leeway in taking advantage of women who might be in a particularly vulnerable position. Safeguards need to be put in place!

  • Comment number 11.

    "Stem cells are big business, there is a world shortage ,is this a way to drum up more customers?

  • Comment number 12.

    Yes, they are offering a legal service so they should be allowed to make people aware of this. Pregnant women should have access to ALL the facts so they, and only they, can make informed decisions whether to continue or terminate their pregnancy.

    The anti-abortion lobby may not like this, but the vast majority of people in this country are not driven by outdated religious dogma, and instead are capable of making their own decisions based on their own circumstances.

  • Comment number 13.

    Isnt it better for people to be informed about their choices? Its not just abortion that they are advertising, but all options and where to go for more choices and neutral advice. Frankly i cannot see anything wrong with being informed of your choices.

    And i dont think there is anything stopping a pro-life group making an advert is there? If they are unhappy let them make a counter-advert.

  • Comment number 14.

    I'm not sure on this one. I strongly believe that abotion is a kinder option than having a child that isn't wanted and therefore the option should be available to all. The difficulty is in the use of the word "advertisment", if this is just lazy journalism and, as the article suggests, the aim is more to inform people of their options and encourage people to visit a GP if they have missed a period, then in my opinion that's fine. However the use of "advertisment" suggests the selling of abortions and active encouragement of terminations which is wrong.

  • Comment number 15.

    How sad, abortion is now a commercial venture it seems. We should be encouraging young women to learn to count, use protection and maybe even keep their legs closed, not making it look as though they don't have to worry because a nice, convenient abortion can easily be obtained to take care of the little side effect of their own stupidity. It actually isn’t that hard to avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease if you actually take a little responsibility and don’t drop your knickers without giving any thought to protecting yourself.

    All these ads will do is add to the problem. A pregnant young woman would have very little difficulty seeking advice and medical help, seeing as most of them are at least intelligent enough to google ‘abortion’, make a doctors appointment or use a telephone directory; advertising makes it seem as acceptable and run of the mill as booking a holiday or buying a new pair of shoes and trivialises the issue even further. Do we want to end up in a situation where abortion is simply seen as another form of birth control? Do we want young women thinking ‘it’s ok, I can just get rid of it, I saw that ad on TV’ when their partner encourages them to take risks?

    Also, my advice to any young woman who feels pressurised into having unprotected sex is to use this gem of a line; ‘I don’t mind not using a condom, I’m ready to be a mother!’ That’ll put some fear into young men hoping for a quick but of pleasure with no strings attached!

  • Comment number 16.

    What is all the fuss about !

    Abortion has been legal for over 40 years. And women has informed choices to make via advertisments. I am sick and tired of Pro-life reformers seeking to go back to the bad old days of before the Abortion act. It's about time they live in the 21st Century.

  • Comment number 17.

    No problem at all. People need to know how to access such services.

  • Comment number 18.

    I would also like to express my approval for the 'use a condom' ad campains that aired recently, the ones that showed two different versions of the same situation, one in which the young couple used protection, and had a memorable and enjoyable experience, and one in which they did not and ended up worried and derided rather than happy and satisfied.

  • Comment number 19.

    Yes but only real ones, not those run by religious nutter 'the foetus is more important than the woman' types.

  • Comment number 20.

    Totally agree Spluffy

  • Comment number 21.

    I fully support such advertising - people need to be aware that there are other options open to them rather than giving birth to an unwanted child - a far sadder thing than an abortion in my opinion.

  • Comment number 22.

    If this is done in a fair way that provides advice and guidance to people who need it then this is a good thing.

    But it is only right the issue is raised and discussed and is not biased towards one viewpoint.

    We also need to remeber that all human life is special. There are people contributing to another topic that are happy for fat smokers and drinkers to kill themselves off but may well object to abortion on moral grounds.

  • Comment number 23.

    As a teacher to post-16 students, my own opinions on abortion are irrelevant, the needs of the student - often very distraught - are paramount and she must be talked through ALL the options available to her, not just the ones I believe are morally acceptable... and then supported in her choice, whatever that might be.

    So I do not have a problem with an advisory service advertising that they offer abortions. It is always open to those who have an issue with it to pay for their own advertisement if they have a support service to offer that doesn't include abortion as an option. No use whinging about the cost of a TV ad, if the issue is that important to you go and raise the money from like-minded folks. And if you don't offer any support to ladies with unwanted pregnancies, shame on you!

    I tell students in this situation, "Whatever choice you make is the right one for you - and whatever it is, there will be times that you will regret it. But it is still right because it is YOUR choice."

  • Comment number 24.

    Why is it that Pro-life groups are also pro-death penalty?

  • Comment number 25.

    Yes, let them advertise. They're a non-profit organisation and it couldn't be more more offensive than the daily aggrandizement of tat we already get.
    Abortion has been legal in this country since 1966 but some people seem to be in denial about that.

  • Comment number 26.

    3. At 1:20pm on 20 May 2010, Keano's boot wrote:
    As long as it isn't being advertised as an alternative to contraception then I don't have a problem with it

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You do not have to advertise it as an alternative to contraception for it to be viewed as one. Making it seem more easily available will make young women think that it is an accessible safety net option. You are also ignoring the fact that teenage girls are, in many instances, having sex earlier than they would like to because of pressure from their boyfriends or a feeling that there is something wrong with them if they don't, they often have conflicting or innaccurate information about contraception, and advertising abortion on TV will make them see it as an available option. Young girls do not always make the best choices (and I remember that part of my own adolescence well enough), and this is not going to help.

  • Comment number 27.

    OK I'm a man and I'm not anti-abortion. With the rates of teenage and unplanned pregnancies we have I think it's probably necessary. May be not right but necessary.

    What I want to know, though, is how many of these women are truely uninformed. I ask becuase I simply don't know and it's likely I will ever be in a position where I will have to find out.

    Apathy? Too scared to ask for help? Even in some cases "Playing the Benefit System". These I can understand even if I don't agree with the motives. I just can't believe lack of information is the problem.

  • Comment number 28.

    They should be allowed. religious objections are not allowed in other areas so this should be no exception.
    What would follow - banning condom ads because the Catholic contingent (theoretically) object? And then watch millions of lives being ruined due to HIV.

    They need to be shown after a 9pm watershed though.

  • Comment number 29.

    Ban the adverts!! Much better to encourage desperate women to seek advice from back street abortionists. ( To the Moderators:- My comment is of course made as humour, an exaggeration to make a point. It is not intended to break any other house rules. I cannot guarantee that those determined to be annoyed will not find it offensive but that must be their problem and remain beyond the remit of moderation)
    It will remain possible for Pro-life groups to advertise their view, within the rules, one of which requires that truth be adhered to. No doubt that the Stopes organisation can do that and present a well reasoned advert for the services they already provide, services that are already in use by many whatever Prolife believe.

  • Comment number 30.

    Let's ask the foetuses what they think shall we?

  • Comment number 31.

    I know the Roman Catholic Church would oppose this and argue their case with logic, although I and others might not share their views. Problem is that they are part of a Christian tradition. Best to find out what representatives of various ethnic communities want and accept their rulings. Offence should not be tolerated.

    3. At 1:20pm on 20 May 2010, Keano's boot wrote:

    The pro-life groups need to get a grip of themselves...
    .............................................
    Good comment eh.

  • Comment number 32.

    As the worlds population heads towards 8 billion one must wonder what must be done to attempt some sort of answer without having to resort to war, pestilence and famine to control our numbers. We claim to be civilised but we fail to recognise the world is overpopulated with two legged anthropoids. Abortion may be abhorent to many folks including myself but we have reached a time when such procedures are required. What is worse than an unwanted child. If contraceptives are not the answer then I suppose we must look elsewhere.
    At No.4 "ONE" suggests putting a contraceptive dose in all school dinners.
    I would go further and say it should be introduced into the water supply. Then we could pass a test and obtain an antidote from the Doctor for a limited time. It all sounds ghastly but urgent times require urgent means.

  • Comment number 33.

    12. At 1:31pm on 20 May 2010, matt_uk01 wrote:

    The anti-abortion lobby may not like this, but the vast majority of people in this country are not driven by outdated religious dogma,

    This has nothing to do with religion, and you don't have to be anti abortion to think that this is a bad idea. Leave out the moral aspects; making abortion seem like a readily available option will increase pressure on young women to take risks with their bodies, will increase teenage pregnancy rates (aborted or not) and will increase the spread of STDs.

  • Comment number 34.

    12. At 1:31pm on 20 May 2010, matt_uk01 wrote:

    "the vast majority of people in this country are not driven by outdated religious dogma, and instead are capable of making their own decisions based on their own circumstances."

    But what about the fact that many of these women are in a vulnerable, emotional state? I would argue that they need assistance from balanced healthcare professionals, not people with an agenda.

    And not everyone opposed to abortion opposes it on religious grounds.

  • Comment number 35.

    No way! we have a big problem here with teenage pregnancy and there are some people who use abortion and or the morning after pill as contreception. it is up to the parents to start taking responsibility back. instead of teaching sex education at primary school we should be encouraging respect and self respect, it just seems that moral values have been eroded as more and more things become trivialised and considered exceptable. i have two young girls and i am shocked by what they are taught and what they hear. i have a policy to never lie to my girls but i am constantly pushed in to explaining things that my children are not of an age to have a good understanding, they have lost there childhood.i live in town and we see and hear the young people, the language is shocking (and i am no prude)even the girls spit, they are fearless and have no respect for themselves let alone the people and enviroment around them. we have a generation who have no fear of hardship, they do what they do because they can,there are no consequences.advertising abortion would feed in to the already horiible attitude towards life.

  • Comment number 36.

    Why not advertise contraception instead, in such a way that young people in particular will actually take notice? Better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place rather than snuff out a life that has already come into being.

    I saw a programme about teenage mothers recently. One of them freely admitted that she used the morning-after pill as a contraceptive. If there is already an awareness of the MAP, why is there no awareness of taking proper responsibitity & using a "proper" form of contraception.

    As a society, we need to make people more responsible for themselves and their behaviour, not provide them with solutions every time they mess up.

  • Comment number 37.

    If a company wants to advertise on TV and the product/service they are providing/advertising is not illegal - then YES they should be able to advertis on TV

  • Comment number 38.

    no.

  • Comment number 39.

    No No No!
    abortion should only be carried out if there is a danger from the pregnancy, an "unplanned pregnancy" is not sufficient reason, there are many childish couples who would love to adopt one of these babies
    To advertise would minimize the huge matter of killing an unborn child, which is what it is.It should never be mimimised, like having a botox injection in your lunch break.
    Love of money is the root off evil, how true, and how very sad.

  • Comment number 40.

    Do abortion services need to be advertised? The fact that these services are available for those who choose to use them is common knowledge, not only within these shores but also abroad. To some in our society the practice is evil and abhorrent whilst others regard it as a necessary welfare facility with many shades of opinion in between.

    Advertising would have overtones of commercialisation in this area which is an area where human need and welfare should be to the fore. However if those who provide abortion facilities are to be banned from advertising then also so should some of the more extreme messages put out by the anti-abortionists, messages which could incite extremists. What we must avoid is propelling ourselves into a situation such as has occurred in the USA where clinical staff involved in abortion procedures have been murdered. We have enough problems to deal with as it is.

  • Comment number 41.

    How about if Vicky Pollard appeared in the ads?

  • Comment number 42.

    This is a sensationalist and misleading headline.

    Marie Stopes aren't advertising their abortion services, they are advertising their pregnancy advice service. Their representative has said that the word abortion doesn't occur in the advertisement.

    Women who need advice on pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, should know where to go to get unbiased advice about all the legal options. I think it is a good idea, and I don't see why there should be a problem. It is always right to give people accurate information and let them make the key decisions about their lives.

  • Comment number 43.

    In reply to Mat Uk 01
    Why do you think people who are against abortion suffer from " outdated religious dogma? What a strange idea, I am not at all religious, but like many people, I think abortion, except in rare cases is wrong.
    Threre are many better options available, rather than abort for no good reason.

  • Comment number 44.

    24. At 1:49pm on 20 May 2010, Andy wrote:

    "Why is it that Pro-life groups are also pro-death penalty?"

    Which ones are?

  • Comment number 45.

    In reply to 13 ...

    "And i dont think there is anything stopping a pro-life group making an advert is there? If they are unhappy let them make a counter-advert."

    I think there is. Unless I'm mistaken, pro-life groups have been barred from showing 'adverts' on abortion.

    Personally, I'm against abortion. Not from a religious/hate perspective, though.

  • Comment number 46.

    How can we call ourselves a civilized society and yet allow abortions. In this day and age there more options available for contraception than ever before. The taking of any life is abhorrant and to advertise it, just shows how low we have sunk.

  • Comment number 47.

    Anyone who finds these adds offencive is living in the dark age when they still burned women for witchcraft.

  • Comment number 48.

    It's a real shame that the anti-religion crowd are using this as another opportunity to have a go at anyone with faith, even though it isn’t mentioned in the article or even relevant to the discussion.

    It’s amazing how fundamentally religious about their atheism some people can be, and how eager to shove their opinions down other’s throats non-believers in God can be. Kind of ironic really. I don’t go around bringing my faith into every argument, why go around bringing your lack of belief into it? What are you trying to prove? You don’t have to have religious reasons to be anti-abortion. You don’t have to be anti-abortion to be uncomfortable with having it advertised as an easy way out. It isn’t. Having an abortion is far more emotionally ad physically damaging than being sensible and educated enough not to need one.

    This is a debate about whether advertising abortion is appropriate, not what the church/ mosque/ temple/ whatever thinks about it.

  • Comment number 49.

    I think it is about time that adverts were shown to make women aware of the options available to them!
    I also think it is important to stress that the services offered are not just for young women who have had unprotected sex, but is also for women who have been raped and maybe in need of sexual health advice or may have an unwanted pregnancy. These women should not be left in the dark about what to do and the options available to them for the sake of some outdated, short-sighted, pro-life supporters.

  • Comment number 50.

    With the war against white Christianity by the secular left, we all know that openly offending Christians is not only accepted, but has almost become celebrated in this country.

    At the same time we also know that had this offended a certain other religion with a tendency for aggression, then everything would be done to avoid any offence.

  • Comment number 51.

    I don't think it's a bad idea. It's not exactly advertising abortion so much as allowing somebody who is considering abortion to weigh their options.
    It could in fact help people to make the right decision, or to maybe get over a bad one. Either way, it's probably the best way to let people out there know that there's someone available to listen.
    How is it that different from suicide hotlines?

  • Comment number 52.

    No, I consider abortion to be a form of murder.
    Nothing to do with religion, its biology; just because the child has not yet been born doesn't mean its alive.
    Advertising a service to perform murder on the TV is very bad taste.

  • Comment number 53.

    There is no way that there should adverts for abortion advice on television. Whether people like it or not, abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. It might be called a fetus by some so that they can hide the truth, but it is a baby, a human being.

  • Comment number 54.

    32. At 1:58pm on 20 May 2010, Geoffrey Bastin wrote:
    As the worlds population heads towards 8 billion one must wonder what must be done to attempt some sort of answer without having to resort to war, pestilence and famine to control our numbers.


    The UN Population Division's latest projection is that world population will begin to fall in around 2052. That'll be because we're all learning to limit our family size.
    All thanks to big numbers of women making little decisions.

  • Comment number 55.

    16. At 1:37pm on 20 May 2010, Gillian wrote:
    What is all the fuss about !

    Abortion has been legal for over 40 years. And women has informed choices to make via advertisments. I am sick and tired of Pro-life reformers seeking to go back to the bad old days of before the Abortion act. It's about time they live in the 21st Century.


    The fuss is about killing a living human being. It may be legal, but it is morally questionable. There are three parties with a vestwed interest, the woman, the man that impregnated her, and the unborn child; but only one of these parties decides what happens.

  • Comment number 56.

    35. At 2:04pm on 20 May 2010, kimmyp66 wrote:
    "there are some people who use abortion and or the morning after pill as contreception".


    Er, the morning after pill is contraception. Of the emergency kind.

  • Comment number 57.



    41. At 2:11pm on 20 May 2010, Richard wrote:
    How about if Vicky Pollard appeared in the ads?

    LOVE IT! Let's attach some good old fashioned negative stereotypes and give the kids a good scare. The message should be loud and clear, and it should be 'if you do not take precautions to stop yourself getting pregnant you could end up either having an extemely unpleasant medical procedure, or ruin your life and end up a fat chav with no options whatsoever' rather than 'don't worry, if you get knocked up you cna call tehse nice people and they'll make it all go away'!

  • Comment number 58.

    Yes if done at an appropriate hour in the evening. While I am not condoning abortion, it is a difficult decision to any women who has had to make it. Further I agree with the great feminist Gloria Steinem who once said if men had babies The Church would make abortion a sacrament.

    Better sex education, is part of the answer. The other is we make people get a license to drive, and to marry but nothing needed to have children, Then when thse poor inocents are abused or murdered, we fire social workers because it was there fault. A good rethink needs to be done by all.

  • Comment number 59.

    I AGREE!! no way is an abortion th quick fix people seem to think so no i think everyone knows that option is available maybe adverts saying are u planning an abortion have u thought it through... are u aware this is something that will always be with you!!

  • Comment number 60.

    I don't see why they can't advertise . . After all we have adverts showing (or atleast hinting at) graphic and horrific injuries to children. If an abortion stops one child being born that's unwanted then good is what i say

  • Comment number 61.

    "Why is it that Pro-life groups are also pro-death penalty?"
    They also tend be against sex education and contraception too , equal rights don't figure too highly in their world view either.
    Anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment is a philosophically consistent position at least.

  • Comment number 62.

    'Should abortion services be advertised'? is the HYS question.

    As this partly relates to Marie Stopes International and 'Life' locking horns - had a look at both web-sites.

    Both these organisations appear to offer more than their current 'niche media' frenzy value after looking at both websites? They appear to be useful for, anyone, who is sexually active.

    As the 'media' and PR of both organisations 'appear to misrepresent' both as anti this, or pro that - this attitude offers no constructive value for those who actually need help and impartial advice?

    Surely, BOTH these organisations need to find some 'common/middle' ground to serve those they genuinely wish to help?

  • Comment number 63.

    I can't see what the fuss is about. Abortion is legal.Why shouldn't Marie Stopes be allowed to advertise the services they provide? It's not a choice taken lightly by women and it helps to have someone to talk to, so knowing who to phone surely can't be a bad thing?

    I do notice that often the most vociferous 'pro-lifers' seem to be men - who are never going to have to make the difficult decision whether to terminate a pregnancy or not but seem to want to deny women the right to choose. Nice to know we've moved on from the Dark Ages...

  • Comment number 64.

    47. At 2:32pm on 20 May 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
    Anyone who finds these adds offencive is living in the dark age when they still burned women for witchcraft.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Probably the most uninformed and pointless comment so far. What is innofensive about making unprotected sex seem like less of a problem to impressionable young people? Are you not offended by the idea that this could well cause more young women to play dice with their health and futures than we have already?

    It isn't really suprising that we have massive problems with the younger generations when people have abandoned all sense of self restraint and respect as 'belonging to the dark ages'.

  • Comment number 65.

    No...this is a personal choice at the moment...this is about two politically apposed views.If they want to show political ads they can do this by paying.However the poor cannot afford the sky high TV license...

  • Comment number 66.

    All too often, it seems to me, a pregnant teenager was not only seduced by a selfish Lothario but then went on to believe the seductive tosh printed in right wing newspapers and pro-life women's magazines about how good a free flat and benefits can be if she keeps the baby. It's no wonder that tragedy often follows such a course of action when the girl concerned goes "stir crazy" in her financially restrictive prison of a 'free' home - and takes out her frustrations on the helpless infant.
    Social Services have continually proven their ineffectiveness when charged with safeguarding mothers and babies in these situations so anything to stop the birth in the first place must be an improvement.
    Advertising the availability of prophylactic and chemical contraception, including last gasp “morning after” treatment, together with advice on legal abortion for "the one that got away" strikes me as the only sensible way to tackle our surging population of unmarried mothers. The sooner the better!

  • Comment number 67.

    35. At 2:04pm on 20 May 2010, kimmyp66 wrote:
    "there are some people who use abortion and or the morning after pill as contreception".

    Er, the morning after pill is contraception. Of the emergency kind.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well yes, it is, but it's reliability decreases with each hour following intercourse, it does not protect against STIs, if you are sick it may not work, and as anyone who has ever taken it will know,they may haev improved teh formula over the last ten years but it can make you very sick and headachy. Trust me, using a condom is far simpler and safer. No form of contraception, other than abstainance, is 100% reliable but the morning after pill is not one of the most reliable, especially if you are not entirely sure whether the 72 hours are up or not. After 2 days I believe that its reliability falls to something like 80%.

  • Comment number 68.

    46. At 2:27pm on 20 May 2010, BoozieSuzie wrote:
    "How can we call ourselves a civilized society and yet allow abortions. In this day and age there more options available for contraception than ever before. The taking of any life is abhorrant and to advertise it, just shows how low we have sunk."

    You are correct there are lots of options, remind me again how many of which are 100% effective?

    also, what about rape? would you choose to keep a life created through such a abhorrent act?

  • Comment number 69.

    Yes, they should hand out a leaflet to every long term benefit junkie.

  • Comment number 70.

    52. At 2:46pm on 20 May 2010, Mike from Brum wrote:
    "No, I consider abortion to be a form of murder."

    Again, so you'd be happy for your wife/partner etc to keep the child after they have been raped and you grow up as its' daddy, until the guy demands visitation (human) rights of course.....i'm guessing your partner would choose to be a murderer in your eyes than live through that

  • Comment number 71.

    Termination of Pregnancy is the generic term used in hospital.

    There are a multitude of reasons why any women takes such a major decision?
    Yes, it is an extremely difficult decision - whatever the circumstances. Women are expected by 'society' to deal with the issue of pregnancy. A no win situation - as usual?

    Those who only focus on women regarding termination - should back off!

    The focus on this whole issue should turn fully on men and their responsibilties on impregnation too!

  • Comment number 72.

    56. At 2:51pm on 20 May 2010, Reflectionseeker wrote:

    "35. At 2:04pm on 20 May 2010, kimmyp66 wrote:
    "there are some people who use abortion and or the morning after pill as contreception".

    Er, the morning after pill is contraception. Of the emergency kind."

    The point was nicely missed there. I'm fully aware of ladies who have unprotected sex and use the morning after pill as contraception. Sheer stupidity but it does happen, sadly.

  • Comment number 73.

    63. At 3:12pm on 20 May 2010, Caz wrote:

    "I do notice that often the most vociferous 'pro-lifers' seem to be men - who are never going to have to make the difficult decision whether to terminate a pregnancy or not but seem to want to deny women the right to choose."

    But when having an abortion a woman is not required to consider the right of the child's father. Most people would consider it truly terrible (and rightly so) if a woman were forced to have an abortion because the father didn't want a child, but we, as society, find it acceptable that a father can have his unborn child destroyed because the woman doesn't want it.

    We women need to decide which way we want to have things. Either the child is the responsibility of both parents (in which case mums-to-be and dads-to-be should both have a say), or a child is the responsibility of the mother alone (in which case we can kiss goodbye to child support).

  • Comment number 74.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 75.

    In an evolved, civilised society, where methods of contraception are practically 100% effective, there is no place for a practice as barbaric as abortion.

    I say "practically 100% effective" but we know there are cases where contraception has failed. Contraceptive failure is not the main reason why women seek abortion however and neither is rape. These are a tiny minority of cases. It is generally because the woman (and man) have been irresponsible & have not used contraception at all. It is all too easy for a man to take his pleasure and walk away without having to deal with the consequences. The responsibility needs to be taken on board by both parties.

    Future generations will look back at us and shudder that such things could once have happened, like we look back at the past with a sense of outrage when we find out about some of the terrible things that happened.

  • Comment number 76.

    4. At 1:20pm on 20 May 2010, One wrote:

    On the whole teen pregnancy subject, I honestly believe there would be a lower rate if the right wing press stopped banging on about what a brilliant life single teenage mums have, and how they get an absolute fortune in benefits and a free house.

    They've done more to advertise single-motherhood as a lifestyle than any amount of playground talk could ever achieve.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Head, sand and bury come to mind.

  • Comment number 77.

    7. At 1:26pm on 20 May 2010, Teenie wrote:

    No these adverts should not be shown on TV. I agree with a womans right to chose,

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Womens right, and what about the mans????!!!!

    Sheesh, you give them the vote.......

  • Comment number 78.

    37. At 2:06pm on 20 May 2010, root66 wrote:
    If a company wants to advertise on TV and the product/service they are providing/advertising is not illegal - then YES they should be able to advertis on TV

    .........................................................................

    You mean like tobbaco ?

    and does this mean that all that sex education for our kids isn't working ?

    by the way i'm not pro life i'm anti hypocracy ( however you spell it )

  • Comment number 79.

    I wonder. Technically the NHS, police force, ambulance service, fire brigade don't advertise. Yet we are all aware of them and what they do. Likewise with contraception, we all know it's out there in many different and effective forms - I'm not including the MAP in this - so wouldn't it be better to advertise these? The old saying 'prevention is better than the cure' is incredibly relevant here. And to the person who seemed to focus on this all being the girls/womans fault needs to rememeber that it takes 2 to make a baby - the boy/man has equal responsibilty here

  • Comment number 80.

    " 14. At 1:34pm on 20 May 2010, And_here_we_go_again wrote:
    I'm not sure on this one. I strongly believe that abotion is a kinder option than having a child that isn't wanted and therefore the option should be available to all. The difficulty is in the use of the word "advertisment", if this is just lazy journalism and, as the article suggests, the aim is more to inform people of their options and encourage people to visit a GP if they have missed a period, then in my opinion that's fine. However the use of "advertisment" suggests the selling of abortions and active encouragement of terminations which is wrong."

    The advertisement is for the Marie Stopes helpline and I don't think it encourages women to visit their GPs. From the interview on Women's Hour this morning I understand the advertisement euphemistically refers to post conception care rather than abortions. Post conception care could mean a lot of things, ante-natal care, advice about maternity rights etc but in this case it turned out to just mean abortion. Women wanting counselling from Marie Stopes should be aware that there is a charge of around £80 for it.

  • Comment number 81.

    Yes, yes.yes. But I would like to see the advertising put into context with educational programmes, not wedged between the "X factor" . Abortion should not be regarded as a form of contraception. Whether we like it or not it is a legalised way of killing a human. The danger is that society gets de-sensitised to the facts. This form of advertising must never be allowed to be degraded to the status of a spot remover. Ultimately a woman has to make a choice ,but let's not hide the options in the way of some medieval know better society

  • Comment number 82.

    "Should abortion services be advertised?"

    ABSOLUTELY NO!

    As I am pro-life, I am also aware of certain people who claim to be pro-life but, in actuality, are far from it. REAL pro-life advocates feel that the ONLY reason for ending the life of the child is in the event that it comes to the choice of the Mother's life versus that of the child's. There are those who feel that even then, the baby should come first. We MUST remember that the baby did not cause the pregnancy, rape, incest, or its own physical condition. Why then, should it face execution? To make matters worse, why should it have its legs and arms torn from its body while its heart is still beating-- BY ITS OWN MOTHER???? Most pro-choice advocates don't want you to know that. They also don't want you to know that most often than not, the unborn child FEELS its limbs being torn from its body before the murder is complete. When we have jail time for the Mothers who murder their unborn children, and jail time for the Doctors who do the murdering, and jail time for the boy friend/husband/john/stranger who knew of the murder and did nothing to prevent it, then we will ALL live in a more civilized and compassionate world.

    Most pro-choice advocates who cite the unhappy future of a child born with birth defects, no Father, or to an abusive Mother on drugs, forget to ask the children of these people whether or not THEY would have chosen death for themselves. If their answer is no, then, NO ONE should have the right to decide that for them. When you put a key into your car to start it, you expect it to start so you can drive it. When you insert your penis into a vagina, or allow a penis to be inserted into your vagina, you have to expect it to produce a child. That is its MAIN function. The unborn child should pay with its life so that you can achieve an orgasm? WHY??? Am I a religious fanatic? No. I am a non-believer. Am I better than everyone else or do I think I am? Far from it. I party, go clubbing, drink on occasion like a fish, drive insanely fast sometimes, have experimented with drugs, and do my share of wrongs like everyone else. When I do something wrong though, I take responsibility for it.

    Someone who is contemplating an abortion should go to an orphanage or to a children's hospital and look at how they are living. They may not be living like you and I but, they have their friends, their enemies, their favorite T.V. shows, and they find joy in their lives just as we do, because they ARE a part of us. I wonder if you would have the nerve to ask them if they would have traded their lives for your orgasm or for your quest for a perfect person?

    I wonder what their answer would be?

  • Comment number 83.

    70. At 3:36pm on 20 May 2010, Gavin aLaugh wrote:

    "52. At 2:46pm on 20 May 2010, Mike from Brum wrote:
    "No, I consider abortion to be a form of murder."

    Again, so you'd be happy for your wife/partner etc to keep the child after they have been raped and you grow up as its' daddy, until the guy demands visitation (human) rights of course.....i'm guessing your partner would choose to be a murderer in your eyes than live through that"


    So you don't consider adoption to be one of the many options available to women then?

  • Comment number 84.

    I would rather people know its an option that not know. if that means a TV advert then fine.

    In an overly populated country(and world) reducing birth rate is somewhere between a good idea and essential.

    Not that its PC to talk about it but by some estimates the planet is over populated by 1-2 BILLION. That would mean if the planet is to survive we need to reduce numbers quickly and drastically. It wouldn't surprise me if before the century is out some form of global forced population reduction will happen.

  • Comment number 85.

    70. At 3:36pm on 20 May 2010, Gavin aLaugh wrote:
    52. At 2:46pm on 20 May 2010, Mike from Brum wrote:
    "No, I consider abortion to be a form of murder."

    Again, so you'd be happy for your wife/partner etc to keep the child after they have been raped and you grow up as its' daddy, until the guy demands visitation (human) rights of course.....i'm guessing your partner would choose to be a murderer in your eyes than live through that

    -----

    Why do supporters of abortion always raise the example of rape? 99.9% of abortions are for lifestyle reasons, not because the foetus is a product of rape. The fact that you raise the example of rape shows that deep down you know abortion is a morally reprehensible act and you need to find another morally reprehensible act to justify it. I agree completely with Mike from Brum, abortion is wrong, it is infanticide, foetuses are human beings. Abortion should not be practised by a civilised society, let alone advertised.

  • Comment number 86.

    #50. Absolutely SPOT ON!

    If only we had some sort of recommend function.

  • Comment number 87.

    For all those anti abortion types who say there is NO reason to allow this in a civilised country.

    What about victims of rape????
    What about if the birth WILL kill you and the child????
    What if you OR the child WILL die????

    Im sure there are lots of other reasons related to this but prsonally feel it should be a choice for everyone

  • Comment number 88.

    52. At 2:46pm on 20 May 2010, Mike from Brum wrote:

    No, I consider abortion to be a form of murder.
    Nothing to do with religion, its biology; just because the child has not yet been born doesn't mean its alive.
    Advertising a service to perform murder on the TV is very bad taste.

    -------------------------

    Its as much murder as not having sex during ovulation. Dare to advertise that?

  • Comment number 89.

    8. At 1:27pm on 20 May 2010, toni49 wrote:
    If services advocating abortion are to be advertised, will services objecting to it also be allowed to advertise? Having one without the other suggests bias in the advertising laws.

    What kind of service exists solely to object to abortion ?
    Marie Stopes aren't there to debate the morality of the issue. They've been around a long time after all.


  • Comment number 90.

    56. At 2:51pm on 20 May 2010, Reflectionseeker wrote:
    35. At 2:04pm on 20 May 2010, kimmyp66 wrote:
    "there are some people who use abortion and or the morning after pill as contreception".

    Er, the morning after pill is contraception. Of the emergency kind.

    Yes "emergency" is the key word, accidents do happen but what i was refering to was the young men and women who hop in and out of bed with whoever and take no preventative resposibility. there is loads of information freely available and the well informed will tell you that the morning after pill should not be used as a regular form of contreception because of the possibility of harm.

  • Comment number 91.

    Abortion is legal in this country and we are supposed to be all about rights. What about a woman's right to have a termination if she wants to? How can women make informed choices if they're not being told how to access the services they need, or what services are actually available?

    There have been ads for emergency contraception and chlamydia screening - do people find those offensive? Do they clamour for their removal from our TV screens lest the innocent youngsters be corrupted? No, they do not.

    Why should a legal service like abortion be any different?

  • Comment number 92.

    Oh dear. I hate the thought of abortion. I can see many reasons why women might feel the need to terminate. I don't think many of them come to that decision lightly.

    I'm not sure why I find the idea of advertising on TV so upsetting - but I do - is it because it might trivialise a termination? Because TV does seem to numb our senses after a while.

  • Comment number 93.

    6. stephen wrote:

    Pregnancy between unmarried couples used to be socially frown upon, unfortunately now its the norm.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Happy to see that prejudice and bigotry still abound after so many years of legal abortion.

    But of course people like stephen are not really interested in abortion as a subject. It's just another of their personal prejudices against the horrid people who do not believe what they believe.

    As a man I feel unable to make as serious a comment on this subject as a woman would. What I do know is this, no-one, ever, want's to have an abortion, that is no-one ever gets pregnant to have an abortion. There is always a reason why they do not want the pregnancy.

    My belief is that pregnancy should only be a deliberate decision, between one or both parents, one of which should be the mother.

    As for advertising the service, I am reminded of Clare Rainners advertisement for pads for women to use during periods. The mention of the 'p' word brought about a tirade of condemnation. This has been shown to be so bigoted it is laughable. That you mun't talk about something that has affected women for all time.

    The elephant in the room is of course without legal abortions taking place under proper medical control women have only back-street abortions to fall back on.

    We must ask ourselves, as a society, why with so much sex education and freely available contraception there are still women who find they have to have a termination.

  • Comment number 94.

    Why not advertise. Its a service just like any other.

  • Comment number 95.

    I find it sad that destroying life should be the answer to birth control, especially when many of the young women using this method, spend the rest of their lives feeling guilty.

  • Comment number 96.

    72. At 3:38pm on 20 May 2010, Sue Denim wrote:
    "The point was nicely missed there. I'm fully aware of ladies who have unprotected sex and use the morning after pill as contraception."


    Again, the morning after pill IS a form contraception. It may nor be the most gentle nor the most desirable, but that is its classification.
    It cannot be counted as a form of termination of pregnancy because it can take up to two days after intercourse for conception to occur. Thus, when taking it, you do not know whether or not you are pregnant (having unprotected sex does not always result in conception). Thus, those who take the morning after pill are attempting to stop conception.

    And it's not always the result of stupidity. There are times when women forget that they forgot their pill or condoms break.

  • Comment number 97.

    46. At 2:27pm on 20 May 2010, BoozieSuzie wrote:
    "How can we call ourselves a civilized society and yet allow abortions. In this day and age there more options available for contraception than ever before. The taking of any life is abhorrant and to advertise it, just shows how low we have sunk."

    I agree that with the contraception options available it should not get to the point of needing an abortion, but unwanted pregnancies happen and I ask you, what is worse, aborting a fetus or having a child that isn't wanted? Personally I belive the latter.

    Also, can we get this straight, they are not adverstising abortion, it is promoting a pregnancy help line that is designed to inform people of all their legal options, yes abortion will be one of these, but it is not going to be promoted as the prefered option

  • Comment number 98.

    73. At 3:39pm on 20 May 2010, toni49 wrote:

    But when having an abortion a woman is not required to consider the right of the child's father. Most people would consider it truly terrible (and rightly so) if a woman were forced to have an abortion because the father didn't want a child, but we, as society, find it acceptable that a father can have his unborn child destroyed because the woman doesn't want it.

    We women need to decide which way we want to have things. Either the child is the responsibility of both parents (in which case mums-to-be and dads-to-be should both have a say), or a child is the responsibility of the mother alone (in which case we can kiss goodbye to child support).

    ---------------------------------------

    The day of female responsibility are way overdue. Somehow men seem to be to blame for so much yet women accept no responsibiliy. Funny but it also sounds like some comments about a marrage :)

  • Comment number 99.

    Women need full information about the process and outcomes of abortion. TV is one of our most efficient means of communication. So what is the issue? Causing offence? To whom? What's that got to do with anything?

    I am offended by Cruft's Dog Show, GMTV, the Tory Party, The Pope, The Daily Mail...... However I would not ban them or argue against their right to exist or advertise.

  • Comment number 100.

    "1. At 1:14pm on 20 May 2010, BulletMonkey wrote:
    No. This has gone too far. By all means allow abortions to those who choose to have them, but advertising them just sends the message that reckless, unprotected sex has no consequence."

    How disgustingly ignorant. Please, go and observe an abortion. Speak to a handful of young girls that have decided to go through with the procedure. Witness the immense feeling of regret that many women go through once it's over. Agree or disagree with the act itself, but don't for a minute claim that it's without consequence.

    Besides, and and it's a shame I can't shout this because it obviously isn't getting through to some of you, they're not advertising abortion. They're advertising their counseling and advice services.

 

Page 1 of 5

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.