Boots morning after pill outrage
Discussion
Am I the only one thinking that £20 is hardly a fortune and if somebody can't afford that, perhaps they should just stop spreading their legs instead of whining so much? Is this really worth involving so many journalists and "experts" in such trivial matter? Just go buy it somewhere else or ask your GP for prescription, problem solved.
Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
Its not like its just the base cost of the pill Boots needs to cover, there's also the consultation before dispensing.
And its not like it's an aspirin; you want to make sure people don't take these too routinely as they're not exactly good for you so the price is meant to encourage using alternatives first.
But hey outrage.
Personally I think they should have stuck it out 'we don't make decisions based on social media'. Its not like a protest would have progressed past a few shouty types anyway with BPAS doing their stirring in the background.
I hear they're targeting Lloyds next?
And its not like it's an aspirin; you want to make sure people don't take these too routinely as they're not exactly good for you so the price is meant to encourage using alternatives first.
But hey outrage.
Personally I think they should have stuck it out 'we don't make decisions based on social media'. Its not like a protest would have progressed past a few shouty types anyway with BPAS doing their stirring in the background.
I hear they're targeting Lloyds next?
It's not the price that have the feminazi outraged, it's the fact that Boots stated it's to limit misuse thereby inferring they are seeking to control women as they cannot be trusted to act appropriately.
Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's not the price that have the feminazi outraged, it's the fact that Boots stated it's to limit misuse thereby inferring they are seeking to control women as they cannot be trusted to act appropriately.
Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted childLet them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
Is the truth, honestly would be cheaper for everyone & better for society if Govt set aside £20million a year and reimburse pharmacies for consultancy & cost of pill
PotatoSalad said:
Am I the only one thinking that £20 is hardly a fortune and if somebody can't afford that, perhaps they should just stop spreading their legs instead of whining so much? Is this really worth involving so many journalists and "experts" in such trivial matter? Just go buy it somewhere else or ask your GP for prescription, problem solved.
Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
Dont worry. I am offended on your behalf. No need to thank me straightaway..Unless you're one of those orange-tanned girls who get pregnant twice a week, it won't exactly ruin your budget.
Looking at the comments on Boots FB page, seems that women think they're a charity obliged to help poor girls, not a business.
babatunde said:
it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child
Is the truth, honestly would be cheaper for everyone & better for society if Govt set aside £20million a year and reimburse pharmacies for consultancy & cost of pill
Does it work like that or are so many using the pill that with its 'failure' rate there may be more terminations etc than without itIs the truth, honestly would be cheaper for everyone & better for society if Govt set aside £20million a year and reimburse pharmacies for consultancy & cost of pill
(failure = some proportion user error or intention)
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's not the price that have the feminazi outraged, it's the fact that Boots stated it's to limit misuse thereby inferring they are seeking to control women as they cannot be trusted to act appropriately.
Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
I'm going to go against the grain of the thread here and agree with this.Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
Boots tried to make themselves moral arbiters of society, which is absolutely not their job. That is what upset everyone, and rightly so.
The price increase was simply their way of carrying out their moral stand.
I also agree that this pill should be available as easily and affordable as possible, as it is indeed far cheaper and less emotionally damaging than an unwanted child or a termination.
I'm well aware that PH likes to get all 'Victorian' over matters such as these, but in this case I believe Boots really got it wrong.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's not the price that have the feminazi outraged, it's the fact that Boots stated it's to limit misuse thereby inferring they are seeking to control women as they cannot be trusted to act appropriately.
Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
Is it still the case that the MAP is a pretty nasty piece of work, and not something any sane person would use liberally as part of their lifestyle choice?Let them have it for free I say, it's cheaper for the taxpayer than a termination or an unwanted child.
If so its perhaps a nod to feminism that it isnt more heavily regulated, when a lot of lesser drugs are. In light of that a consultations probably not the worst idea ever, but we're in one of those areas here where asserting rights and burning > discussion and understanding.
hairyben said:
Is it still the case that the MAP is a pretty nasty piece of work, and not something any sane person would use liberally as part of their lifestyle choice?
If so its perhaps a nod to feminism that it isnt more heavily regulated, when a lot of lesser drugs are. In light of that a consultations probably not the worst idea ever, but we're in one of those areas here where asserting rights and burning > discussion and understanding.
No-one is arguing that a consultation isn't a good idea, or about the nature of the drug. The argument is about boots setting the cost of the MAP based on their moral stance.If so its perhaps a nod to feminism that it isnt more heavily regulated, when a lot of lesser drugs are. In light of that a consultations probably not the worst idea ever, but we're in one of those areas here where asserting rights and burning > discussion and understanding.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff