Abortion ads during game shows

How much lower can this country sink? Channel 4 is set to air an advert for fakecharity Marie Stopes tonight during Davina McCall’s gameshow The Million Pound Drop Live.

The organisation, which carried out 65,000 abortions last year, has circumvented a ban on the commercials because it is a charity and does not make a profit from its services.

According to the Mail, the so-called charity receives an estimated £30million a year from the NHS to carry out abortions.

A legal battle has been mounted to try and stop the broadcast, but I have just called Channel 4 at 12.50pm and they have confirmed it is still scheduled for broadcast. I had my complaint logged as well as my comment that I will not be watching Channel 4 again if this advert goes ahead. Of course, I no longer have the telly, but occasionally I have access in someone else’s house and I really won’t be switching to it.

The advert can be seen on the Guardian’s site. It is devious. It doesn’t mention abortion, but instead asks “Are you late?” and then offers viewers their ‘helpline’. Then at that stage, of course, they can start to offer their killing ‘services’.

The ‘charity’ is named after Marie Stopes, the eugenicist who was so infatuated with Adolf Hitler that she sent him poetry. Stopes, who opened Britain’s first abortion clinic, was a fruit loop if ever there was one

Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

The feminist also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.

Stopes extended her vile doctrines even to her own family. She cut her son Harry out of her will after he married a near- sighted woman – actually the daughter of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb deployed by the Dambusters.

She planned to adopt a child herself-but stipulated that “the boy must be completely healthy, intelligent and uncircumcised”.

This dehumanisation process which has been ongoing for over a century is affecting all of us in a big way.

You can sign the petition here and call Channel 4 on 0845 076 0191.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Abortion ads during game shows

  1. English Viking says:

    State subsidised murder advertised on State subsidised TV does not come as a big surprise to me.

    I am puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the State’s willingness to kill innocent babies, when contrasted with its utter refusal to execute guilty murderers, rapists, pædophiles and terrorists, and in the case of the latter, even deport them.

    This is nothing less than a cull. Culling foxes = Bad. Culling humans = Good.

    Go figure.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    English, it only makes sense to the mentally ill, like Marie Stopes, the brainwashed and the evil.

  3. Subrosa says:

    Oh dearie me Stewart. Just because you fervently disapprove of Marie Stopes’ politics (which most would do today) it doesn’t mean to say her concern with women’s sexual health was wrong. In fact, she was very far thinking in this regard.

    Why is it that I get so angry listening to males banging on about abortion when it’s nothing to do with them? What does a man know about abortion or pregnancy other than he reads in books or hears from women? You’re all experts from the safety of never ever having to be in the position of having to make the decision.

    I’m a staunch pro-choicer these days. Much more so because I’ve listened to far too many males showing their inadequacies in the area of women’s health. Who are you to accuse women of murder?

    Many women make informed choices about abortion. You have no concept whatsoever as to the situations many of these women find themselves – and many situations have been brought about by men.

    Really, if you feel so against abortion, you should be telling men to stop having intercourse and masturbate instead. That would stop unwanted pregnancies.

    There are solid relationships in which both the woman and man make the decision together, but in today’s society they are few and far between. We (that means you and me too) have allowed society to become what it is today.

    Have you ever spoken to anyone highly qualified in women’s health as to what is the most devasting result for women if abortion was banned? Let me tell you what it is. Before abortion was legal, sodomy was the way many avoided pregnancy and there are thousands of women who had very serious health problems in later life because of that. I’ve met a few. They’ve had problems I can’t even type about – they’re too horrific.

    As for the advert, if it lowers the rate of teenage pregnancies that’s fine with it. I found it rather tasteful considering the subject. In fact I did a post about this early this morning and it will be published this evening.

    I find the adverts for telephone sex and male and female escorts much more distressing.

    Rant over.

  4. I am always against abortion because it is a sin to kill an innocent child.*.~

  5. Subrosa,

    I hope you’re crystal clear about the moral reality of the nature of the ‘choice’ which you approve of in proclaiming yourself to be a “stauch pro-choicer.”

    Any act of direct abortion is an act of murder – regardless of the mother’s circumstances or the stage of pregnancy.

    The ‘choice’ you advocate is murder… be very clear about that.

    You are an advocate and an apologist for the mass murder by abortion of the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society.

    The abortion trade in the UK is perpetrating a breathtaking British Baby Holocaust: there are over 200,000 recorded abortions (and the offical figures do not include early-stage abortions caused by the MAP and other abortifacients) annually in the UK.

    You could fill a swimming pool with the blood of the millions of British abortion victims since 1968 and swim around in it Subrosa. That’s a rather sickening mental picture to paint – the thought of you swimming around in the blood of the people whose murder you approve of – but I hope it brings home to you the truth of what you stand for Subrosa… you stand for murder.

    There are NO life circumstances in which any pregnant woman can ever morally justify the murder of another human being – her own child – in an act of direct abortion.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:


    You’ll not be surprised that I agree with Richard. There are a few other points I want to make.

    One excuse people give for trying to justify abortion, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, is that the thing in the womb is just a bunch of cells. As adults, we are also just a bunch of cells, physically, so it’s not a valid reason, because left to grow, those early cells just keep multiplying. I have many more cells now than I had when I was born. Should newborns be aborted as some ‘doctors’ argue for?

    I think we spoke on your blog about the ‘slippery slope’ on euthanasia, if I recall. We can see the same with abortion. It was meant to put backstreet abortionists out of business, but now 98% are for ‘social reasons’. People have been fooled with the eugenicists’ “family planning” agenda for population control.

    Talking of agendas, you might have noticed that all the energy is going into “reducing teenage pregnancy,” yet schools are preparing youngsters to be promiscuous with their ‘free’ contraceptives and downgrading of marriage.

    It’s not just about telling men to stop having intercourse. What about the womenfolk? And of course, there is marriage where babies are a blessing (or used to be/should be) and contraception and abortions shouldn’t be an issue, but the eugenicists today don’t want more people growing up in happy families, so they create dysfunction and confusion in teenagers to make them less likely to be able to raise stable families of their own. I believe this is the main aim of the sexual revolution, including feminism and the programme of normalising homosexuality.

    And you make it sound like every conception is due to immoral men carrying off innocent damsels to their dungeons.

    I am against abortion because it is plain wrong. No if or buts can change that. I know bad things happen to people, but killing the unborn shouldn’t be a ‘remedy’.

    Counter-rant ends.

  7. Subrosa says:

    Richard, I am crystal clear about the choice for women regarding wanted or unwanted pregnancy.

    Who are you to state that any form of abortion is murder? Another male view about a subject of which you are denied, by virtue of gender, knowledge.

    Oh dear Richard, really. Don’t try to lecture a woman of 63 years old. It doesn’t become you and sounds desperate.

    The choice is the woman’s and no one else’s. Your dramatic proclamations don’t influence me whatsoever. In fact they consolidate my personal views. They show the impotence of men where the sexual health of women is concerned.

  8. Subrosa says:

    Stewart, where do you get the figures of 98% for social reasons? Even I know that’s rubbish and I’ve been out of touch with this subject for a few years now.

    I’m not justifying abortion, I’m saying it should be a woman’s choice. For men to preach like Richard is a disgrace to the male sex. Perhaps I should have written exactly what happens to thousands of women’s lives regarding their health when abortion was illegal. Of course Richard would prefer if the husbands of these women had intercourse and produced babies like machines.

    It’s such a pity all of you who have commented here can’t make the case for contraception instead of scaremongering women.

    I said nothing about men carrying off damsels to their dungeons Stewart. You’re being rather silly now. I’m talking about sexual relationships.

    Perhaps, if you’ve time, pop over to Ireland and have a word with many of the GPs there. They will show you the evidence of sexual relationships where religion and contraception is forbidden. That’s just one country.

    As for sex education is schools, surely by now you know I’m totally against it. Including it in the school agenda has done less for the sexual health of girls, and boys, than anything else in my lifetime.

  9. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘I have many more cells now than I had when I was born.’

    Just not between your ears eh Stewart?

  10. English Viking says:


    You claim that abortions reduce the rate of teenage pregnancies. Killing the unborn is not the same as never being pregnant in the first place. Abortion is not contraception.

    You talk about a woman’s sexual health. Being pregnant is not a disease, and killing children is not healthy.

    You dispute Stewart’s figures, yet provide none of your own and admit to not being up to speed in recent years.

    Taking a patronising tone because you are a) A woman, and b) Getting long in the tooth, is not really compelling evidence for why a man cannot have an opinion on a moral matter, one in which he is absolutely required to participate for the situation to come about.

    There are plenty of feckless women about, just as many as men. It takes two to Tango.

    I am pro-choice. The choice is made when the woman consents to sex, (instead of masturbating, which you advocate as a form of birth control for men. What is good for the goose…)

  11. Ally says:

    A few choice words come to mind, but I’ll avoid the temptation:

    Fetuses are not children or babies – not yet

    Whose life is more significant – that of a bundle baby shaped cells that may not make it to term, or a fully functioning adult?

    Stopes was one, just one, of many millions of women, and enlightened men, who believe(d) access to abortion was significant advance in women’s health – her political sentiments (true or imagined fallacious argument) are not significant other than to prove Godwin’s Law applies in this debate, furthermore proof that logic has failed the objectors

    I am now a troll, for that I apologise – but I am also a woman who wishes to live in a society which allows us to make informed health choices, without sentimental or religious patriarchal interference…

  12. English Viking says:


    The answer to your question as to which is more important, the unborn child (that’s we used to call them, before attempts were made to desensitise us from killing them by giving them abstract medical names) or the mother, they are both equally important. I have 2 children who would be happy to testify to the fact they really are human beings, they were not just blobs of goo, even though they were born at 28 weeks, and could have legally been aborted at that time.

    Godwin’s Law does not apply when a person or their argument really did support the Nazis (or write poems to Adolph, as in Stope’s case).

    ‘Informed health choices’… As I said, that choice is made when you close the bedroom door.

  13. Stewart Cowan says:


    You might be 63, but you sound like a feminist (you were only 20 in 1967!). No offence, btw. The baby is just as much the man’s as it is the woman’s.

    The figure is 99% in Scotland for social reasons. The information is out there. Let’s be honest, what reasons are there for abortion that aren’t selfish?

    I’ve never been to Ireland, which is strange considering where I live, but we inhabit a fallen world where lustful thoughts can turn into physical action and cause problems. I don’t believe that the way we do things in the UK helps anyone in the long term, least of all the souls that have been denied their place in history.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:


    Fine reasoning.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:


    Like you, my brain cells increased in number and then when I reached a certain age they started dying off in terribly large quantities.

    However, I still know a few things, like you’re not supposed to begin a sentence (never mind a paragraph) with a conjunction and that English is right when he says that giving alternative medical terms to the stages of the growing babe in the womb desensitises folk to the fact that terminating that life is murder.

  16. Stewart Cowan says:


    I think English has dealt with your confusion, but thanks for joining the debate.

    “Informed health choices” really is a horrible term, no doubt coined by a ‘Family Planning’ population reduction propagandist.

  17. Jim Baxter says:

    Don’t talk daft Stewart. English (the language, not the resident barbarian here) is much more flexible than that. Nobody bothers with authoritarian, Victorian schoolmarm, archaic ‘rules’ such as…

    Ah. Right. I think I’m seeing a pattern at last.

    (Note: two ‘sentences’ with no verb there).

  18. Jim Baxter says:

    As for the brain cells, yes, of course – just a wee joke for you there. But, in your case, I’d say ‘…in terribly large quantities.’ is a severe understatement. How about ‘…in unsustainably catastrophic quantities’? I reserve ‘terribly large’ for my own losses, you see?

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    All that aside, and finally on the point of this post (finally because I’ve been thinking it over – slow thinker – terrible losses – see above), the tone of these adverts is the wrong way around. Such adverts aimed at teenagers should have a different message entirely, one that reminds them all – males and females – that if they CHOOSE to have sex ( i.e. there is no rape) without contraception and conceive as a result then, yes, the woman has the final say on choosing abortion. But each should bear in mind that, if that choice is made, a baby’s life will be ended. A baby’s life, not the life of a ‘foetus’.

    Maybe then there might be fewer unwanted pregnancies.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:


    Does a sentence require a verb? Really?

    You know, number of brain cells isn’t important – it’s what you do with them that matters.

    Glad you agree with English’s bit about alternative medical terms. But why should the woman have the final say when half the genetic information of the baby is the father’s?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>