DiscussMormonism.com

You would think that he would have learned his lesson in the wake of what happened to Will Schryver. Or after he got excoriated for his remarks about Angela Lansbury. Or the Socialcam fiasco. Or his nasty praise of vicious comments directed at female California politicians. But, I guess not. The following images were posted to "Sic et Non," apparently because Prof. P. finds them "amusing":

Dan Peterson's Blog wrote:

Sandra Fluke, a law student who believes that the public has an obligation to provide her with free or low-cost contraceptives so that she can pursue the lifestyle she’s chosen

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

It is becoming more and more apparent why he and Schryver have found common ground

I wonder if Dan's health insurance provides coverage for weight-related illnesses. Being overweight is the lifestyle he has chosen, and he has put himself at risk for a wide range of illnesses and injuries, which, presumably, he expects all of the other customers of his health insurance provider to pay for.

ps: Not making fun of Dan's weight. I was probably bigger than Dan is now about three years ago, and despite dropping well over 100 lbs and dropping a good 12 inches off my pants size, I still weigh more than I really ought to. But the fact is his chosen lifestyle is going to end up costing his health insurance provider vastly more money in the longrun than Sandra Fluke's contraceptives will cost hers. Quite some irony, IMHO.

Sethbag wrote:I wonder if Dan's health insurance provides coverage for weight-related illnesses. Being overweight is the lifestyle he has chosen, and he has put himself at risk for a wide range of illnesses and injuries, which, presumably, he expects all of the other customers of his health insurance provider to pay for.

ps: Not making fun of Dan's weight. I was probably bigger than Dan is now about three years ago, and despite dropping well over 100 lbs and dropping a good 12 inches off my pants size, I still weigh more than I really ought to. But the fact is his chosen lifestyle is going to end up costing his health insurance provider vastly more money in the longrun than Sandra Fluke's contraceptives will cost hers. Quite some irony, IMHO.

Contraceptives also cost considerably less than babies.

I'm pretty sure that one of--if not the--main point of Fluke's argument was that hormone-based contraceptives are used to treat actual conditions, and that they are not only used to prevent pregnancy. Some women with things like, If I recall correctly, PCOS or endometriosis, are prescribed these things by their doctors.

Of course, this whole thing became a controversy after Rush Limbaugh said that Fluke should have to film herself having sex and should post it on the Internet "so we can watch," since, in his rather bizarre view, she was "getting paid" to have sex.

Regardless, in my opinion someone who's trying to launach a serious new scholarly journal--in short, someone looking to avoid controversy--would have been well-advised to steer clear of this particular issue.

liz3564 wrote:

Sethbag wrote:I wonder if Dan's health insurance provides coverage for weight-related illnesses. Being overweight is the lifestyle he has chosen, and he has put himself at risk for a wide range of illnesses and injuries, which, presumably, he expects all of the other customers of his health insurance provider to pay for.

ps: Not making fun of Dan's weight. I was probably bigger than Dan is now about three years ago, and despite dropping well over 100 lbs and dropping a good 12 inches off my pants size, I still weigh more than I really ought to. But the fact is his chosen lifestyle is going to end up costing his health insurance provider vastly more money in the longrun than Sandra Fluke's contraceptives will cost hers. Quite some irony, IMHO.

Contraceptives also cost considerably less than babies.

You're joking, right?

I'm guessing you meant to say "considerably less".

I'm fairly confident that Ludd does not believe that these are sexist.

This doesn't offend me. It could apply to attractive-but-dumb men just as well as attractive-but-dumb women. Dan presents it along with several other unrelated funny images, and though it happens to fall right next to Sandra Fluke, I don't think he meant it to apply to Sandra Fluke. I mean, I don't know Dan's type, but I somehow doubt he would describe Sandra Fluke as "hot."

This doesn't offend me, either. While I'm all for seeing reform to the extent that insurance companies pay for medicinal birth control, I don't believe anyone should be obligated to pay for someone else's elective birth control. "Butt out, it's my choice / Oh, by the way, you're paying for it" does strike me as something of a contradiction of principles.

I guess I do think elective birth control should be subsidized or supplied for the very poor, but I don't think it should be supplied for everyone regardless of income bracket. Fund your own sexcapades.

It makes a lot more sense when you think of it as a health issue, rather than a sexcapade issue.

I mean, eating a dozen donuts a day is a foodcapade, if you will, but very few would try to get a person's heart disease treatment defunded by their insurance on the basis of it being the natural result of the person's lifestyle choices.

People in this country are idiotic about sex. The misrepresentation of Sandra Fluke's testimony on contraceptives and health is an excellent example. Sex is, after all, fundamentally a health issue. I would call contraceptives a form preventative medicine.