Hahahahahahahahahahaha... Yeah, this comment merits an epic facepalm. Also, please type with both of your hands. This post makes it blatantly obvious that you're not, if you understand my meaning.

Wow, lordyourgod... I really hope you're just being sarcastic... if not, then you really are a disgusting human being.

Honestly, this casting call is rather idiotic. As someone who has followed but not really watched Glee (save for clips with particularly good music in them), my primary concern (other than the obvious one) is that she can't sing. I mean, really, she hasn't shown a modicum of vocal talent, so why cast her?

You sound like the only angry one here, to be honest. Yes, there are many babies in need in the world, and we do need to help them, but that gives us absolutely no reason to kill the ones that have committed no crime other than being conceived "inconveniently".

P.S. There are far too many non-religious arguments against abortion for it to simply be an issue of religion.

Wait, do/did you by any chance go to Saint Mary's College of California...?

Considering my older sister wanted to work at Hooter's at one point, I'm pretty fine with idea of Hooters, especially since the last post when I found out that the waitresses wear pantyhose. :) I don't know, I just like wearing pantyhose.

Other than that, my issue is if those who are opposed to Hooter's are so inclined based on feminist principles, then why not just make a restaurant with a bunch of extremely sexily-clad (and sexy!) men (and good food) to cater to women? There, problem solved, and I have another restaurant to frequent.

One: Excellent article! I always love reading the articles on this site, particularly the Feminist Hawk section.

Two: Well of course having a baby doesn't stop anyone from pursuing higher education! To be honest, I do kind of think it offensive that pregnant women are treated like their intellect is malfunctioning unless they have an abortion.

Three: As if I couldn't find Amanda Marcotte any more annoying. As for JenGStarr's quote: It’s not so much about life with them, more about punishing female sexuality... well I have a lot to say about this one.

First off, how the heck is a BABY a punishment for female sexuality?! To be frank, a child is a gift, a wonderful gift, and seems like she or he would be more of a reward than a punishment for female sexuality. I mean, you get to have sex with someone you love, then you can temporarily hold power akin to God in your body by being the sole sustainer of this child's life? That does not sound like a punishment to me, that sounds like a glorious gift from God.

Anyway, if I were really into punishing female sexuality, I'd be telling them to get an abortion. Honestly, I think abortion is a far more efficient, far crueler punishment for female sexuality than carrying a child to term will EVER be.

Sigh... doesn't Bill Maher have anything else to say? I agree with David Horowitz here. It's like listening to a fly buzzing in your ear, over and over again, for hours on end, and it gets really annoying when people, sometimes college professors included, tell you that the fly buzzing in your ear obviously knows better than you. Boo.

What interests me about this piece is that these surgeries are being held in the same country that, through it's One Child policy, has systematically aborted at least 40 million women. The boy to girl ratio in China is reaching 120 to 100 because of these policies, and quite frankly, I don't know if the men mentioned in this article can afford to be so picky unless they're willing to marry a girl from another country. Additionally, and this is my opinion, if they expect their wives to be virgins, they'd better be willing to be virgins for their wives.

The fact is that both the rape of Congo women and the mutilation of Muslim women are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Yet only one of them is universally condemned. Let's see if I can explain this....

If there is any one crime that is universally seen as wrong, it is rape. One can murder another in self-defense, or, in the worst cases, torture to save lives, but there is absolutely no good reason to rape another human being. Therefore, it is infinitely easier to condemn systematic rape when it happens, because it is so horrific.

Another reason it's harder to condemn the mutilation of Muslim women than it is to condemn the rape of Congo women is because such a condemnation will unfortunately be seen as Islamophobic, even if (sometimes I wonder if it's especially if) it is a legitimate criticism.

Additionally, those who mutilate use the (rather poor) excuse that it is their religion that drove them to it, whereas the rapists in Congo are driven by the orders of warlords and their own warped desire for power, and therefore have no excuse whatsoever for their cruelty.

The fact is, there is absolutely no reason we cannot support both rape victims in Congo and Muslim women, yet feminists on the left side of the aisle (not all of them, thank goodness... I seem to have run into the good ones) have picked only one of them, simply because it is politically convenient for them to do so. If they truly supported the rights of women, ALL women, they would fight every bit as fervently for the rights of Muslim women as they do for the right of Congo women to not get raped.