[posted for educational and discussion purposes; not for commercial use]
Call it Ms. America? Contestants can have
divorce, abortion in their past
9.22 a.m. ET (1327 GMT) September 14, 1999
|
| By John Curran, Associated Press |
That may be changing: The world's most famous beauty pageant is greeting the
new millennium by lifting its ban on women who have been married or had
abortions.
And traditionalists aren't happy about it.
"I was shocked when I heard it,'' said Miss America 1993 Leanza Cornett. "I
was like `What?' Out of all of the things I could have expected, that is one I
wouldn't think of in a million years.''
Allowing contestants with divorces and abortions in their pasts will strip a
time-honored gleam of virtue from their rhinestone tiaras, Miss Cornett said
Monday.
"There are still little girls out there who have who held Miss America and
others like her up on a pedestal,'' she said. "When you're sitting around the
dinner table with your daughter or your little niece, it'll bring up so many
questions. I'm shocked.''
For almost 50 years, contestants had signed a pledge vowing they've never
been married or pregnant — a rule enacted after Miss America 1949, Jacque
Mercer, was married and divorced during her reign.
The new rules would require simply that they sign a document saying "I am
unmarried'' and "I am not pregnant and I am not the natural or adoptive parent
of any child.'' While moms still are barred, the change means that women with an
abortion or child given up for adoption in their past would now be eligible. The
pageant is open to contestants age 17 through 24.
The changes were approved last month by the Miss America Organization in
order to bring the pageant in line with New Jersey's discrimination laws,
according to court documents.
The old eligibility rules have never been challenged in court or otherwise,
according to Leonard Horn, a lawyer who served as general counsel from 1967 to
1987 and CEO from 1987 to 1998.
The new policy was deemed to be "reasonably necessary'' by the Miss America
Organization board, according to pageant CEO Robert Beck. "These changes
reflected MAO's conclusion that applicable laws prohibited the continuation of
these requirements at the national level.''
In an affidavit, Beck said state pageants would remain free to keep their
eligibility rules the same, despite the change in the governing body.
However, a state organization that refused to go along might risk losing its
franchise because the national organization determines who gets to run the
official state pageants.
The new state pageant contracts — which Beck distributed to state directors
in August notifying them of the change — were met with some alarm.
"Miss America has a long history of high moral standards and traditions, and
I'm opposed to anything that changes that,'' said Libby Taylor, executive
director of the Miss Kentucky Pageant and president of the National Association
of Miss America State Pageants.
The state pageants went to court to fight the change, and the Miss America
Organization agreed to back off for this year's pageant, scheduled for Saturday
at Convention Hall.
But the board has approved the change to take effect next year.
As the wrangling continues, some current contestants said they are displeased
with a seemingly common touch being added to a contest that celebrates the
feminine ideal — even in an age where one in two marriages fail, and abortion is
controversial yet commonplace.
"The most important thing Miss America does is she's a role model,'' said
Lucy Ours, the reigning Miss West Virginia. "If she's been married and divorced
by age 24, people might not look at her as a very good role model.''
Miss Delaware, Kama Boland, agreed.
"The word 'Miss' stands for something,'' she said. "It would be a shame if
they allow it. It would change the image of Miss America, and not necessarily
for the better.''
Horn, who left last year as pageant CEO after 30 years, said relaxed rules
will lead to some states quitting the Miss America system, which makes more than
$30 million in scholarship aid annually.
"It's acceptable in today's society, but no one could argue that an unwanted
pregnancy or an abortion is an ideal,'' Horn said. "A failed marriage is not an
ideal. It's acceptable and it happens, but it's not an ideal.''
If you kill your kid you can be Miss America. If you keep it, you aren't qualified.
It's a wonderful world full of hope.
I'm glad to hear that at least they're allowing women who have given up a baby for adoption to be eligible -- when I read the story in the Star-Ledger this morning that was not clear. Will they still take away the crown of women who become pregnant while they are the reigning Miss America?
"Miss America has a long history of high moral standards and traditions, and I'm opposed to anything that changes that," said Libby Taylor,...
Welcome to Klinton's Amerika....the fastest growing third world nation on planet earth.
But isn't it a little encouraging that almost all the quotes in this piece are NEGATIVE about the change? Even the pageant CEO seems to be saying that he only did it because "the applicable laws" seem to require it (though the previous CEO, Leonard Horn, states that the no-divorce, no-abortion rules had never been challenged).
If you kill your kid you can be Miss America. If you keep it, you aren't qualified.
Thumpers need to heed their words. Telling people that women who have had abortions have "killed their child" does not have the intended effect.
It marginalizes YOU, not them. You sound demented, frenzied, and dangerously like the mullahs who have destroyed democratic principles in other cultures.
Yet, I read thoughtful essays by befuddled Christians, asking "Why do people fear us?" [because you would forcibly impose your morality on others]
and "Why do they not see our goodness?" [because you have a narrow and distorted view of what that is]
An excellent way for Miss America (DON'T ASK-DON'T TELL) to go out of business. There she is..... Ms America 2000-Monica Lewinsky!!!!
I heard that a lot of the contestants are thespians.
I'm not a "thumper," yet I too recognize that every abortion kills a child. Sometimes the truth hurts. Labeling someone as "frenzied" and a "mullah," simply because he speaks the truth, only shows your own frenzy over the issue.
Pretty soon, you won't even need to be a WOMAN to be Mith Amewica
You have a thing about thespians. 'Course I guess you can't be blamed, what with so many of them thespians down in the Rutgers neck of the woods...
because you have a narrow and distorted view of what that is Without the "intervention" of an abortion, there will be a child, another life. I never realized that abortion, which stops that life, isn't killing anything. Thank you for pointing out what a narrow view I hold.
'The new rules would require simply that they sign a document saying "I am unmarried'''
If they really care about not being sued, how on earth can they be bigoted towards married women??????? It won't be long until we have our first openly lesbian Ms. America. Aren't liberals values great.
If a woman hasn't killed her child with an abortion, what has she done? Erased it like some etch-a-scetch drawing?
I call it a waste of bandwidth:)
You have a thing about thespians.
Every male has a fantasy about thespians.
Telling people that women who have had abortions have
"killed their child" does not have the intended effect. Truth hurts, doesn't it? Perhaps you could explain exactly what the end result of abortion is, if it is NOT the death of a child.
Putting aside your regulation tripe about conservatives, if you cannot see the ridiculousness of allowing a woman who has had a abortion to participate in the Miss America pageant, while not allowing one who has chosen to keep her children to participate, then maybe you are the one with tunnel vision.
But then I forgot; liberals only see things one way.....yours. It simply amazes me that liberals propound tolerance over and over, but fail to EVER recognize anyone else's beliefs as being anything other than WRONG and EVIL.
Inclusion, my a$$. That's just a word you all use to hoodwink the unintelligent masses to con them into thinking you care about what they want, when all liberals want is to DEMAND that everybody else think like them. It's damn near impossible to even DISCUSS these matters with liberals because not only are liberals sure they are right, they are POSITIVE they've never been wrong......AND that they know what's best for everybody on the planet. And god help you if you disagree with them or cross them.
And before you start in with the lockstep liberal rant, I am NOT pro-abortion, pro-gun, OR conservative.
Flame away.
Hey, I have a great idea for you. Why don't we have the abortion performed as part of the "Talent" portion of the competition.
"And next up we have Miss Wyoming, wearing a daring backless hospital gown, in sparkling silver stirrups. A lovely brunette with no soul."
Speaking of thespians, don't the persons in the photo accompanying this article look, um, not very feminine? I wonder if AP got their photos mixed up. Or, maybe the photo is of the male entertainers for the pageant?
I'm glad to hear that at least they're allowing women who have given up a baby for adoption to be eligible But this still sends a confusing message to girls and young women. Implicit in the message is that abortion and giving up the child for adoption are equivalent and acceptable "choices."
Better that they had stuck with the old rules.
'Thumpers need to heed their words. Telling people that women who have had abortions have "killed their child" does not have the intended effect.'
I think calling people 'thumpers' does not have its intended effect. But it does expose a bigot.
I admit to being frenzied. Guilty as charged.
This is just a small dose of multi culturalism. You and I have diametrically opposing views on this one subject. We can be civil, yet we are suspicious of each other, distrust each others morality. Each of us wants government to protect us from the other.
What will we do when Hindus are petitioning for religious freedom to burn their dead in the Lake of the Ozarks?
Without the "intervention" of an abortion, there will be a child, another life.
Good people can disagree on whether that is indeed a good thing.
'This is just a small dose of multi culturalism.'
Excluding Christians, of course.
Thumpers need to heed their words. Telling people that women who have had abortions have "killed their child" does not have the intended effect. Here's another non-thumper that's against abortion.
It marginalizes YOU, not them. You sound demented, frenzied, and dangerously like the mullahs who have destroyed democratic principles in other cultures.
And pro-aborts like Clinton and the Red Chinese never do any of those things.
Yet, I read thoughtful essays by befuddled Christians, asking "Why do people fear us?" [because you would forcibly impose your morality on others] No, I would hope the human race could develop a respect for life irregardless of faith. And protecting the unborn is a key aspect of such a development.
and "Why do they not see our goodness?" [because you have a narrow and distorted view of what that is] Ain't just a right-wing thang. Nat Hentoff is against abortion - he is very pro-human rights, and he recognizes it as a human rights issue. Here in Freeperland, our resident anarchist/Wiccan poster ferret is against abortion as well. I'll take his intellectual honesty and constistency over your bloody realpolitic any day of the week.
(Well, I don't know what we'll do if Hindus want to burn their dead in Lake of the Ozarks. But somehow I doubt they'll start making demands like that. The Indian immigrants I've met, Hindu or Moslem, all expect to reasonably accomodate themselves to existing American culture, and are respectful of others.) I must disagree with you on your statement: "Each of us wants government to protect us from the other." I'm not particularly interested in having the government protect ME from YOU. But I DO want the government to protect those "certain unalienable rights, among them life..."
I don't know what we'll do if Hindus want to burn their dead in Lake of the Ozarks P.S. On second thought, we'll never have to worry about that as a religious freedom --even if Hindus did petition for it. The environmentalists would ban it first.
I'm not particularly interested in having the government protect ME from YOU.
Sure you do. You want them to monitor my reproductive habits and punish me if I abort a child. You want them to monitor doctors too. Do you want doctors put in prison for performing abortions? If you do, then you want protection from government---against our morality prevailing in society.
This is a very small difference between us. The scale isn't evident until and unless you travel between differing cultures rapidly and often. The the scale of the nightmare is more evident.
By the way, Hindus, in sufficient numbers will feel entitled to practice their religious rites in rivers. Then they will be THEIR rivers as well.
Good people can disagree on whether that is indeed a good thing.
People disagreed with Hilter, and rightfully so. The idea that people disagree does not make them bad. It's a liberal dodge to cut off debate just because people strongly disagree.
The pro-abortion side always tries to exclude the "third party" in the debate. It's not just me telling anyone what to do with their body, there is a third life dependent on the mother's decision. If the common belief were that abortion stops a life, then far fewer people, regardless of their religous convictions, would opt for abortion as casually as they do today. It's a begrudging credit to the pro-abortion side that they have effectively kept the "third party" out of all discussions. It's framed as a matter of "freedom of choice" (who can be against freedom) rather than "right or wrong".
The environmentalists would ban it first.
There is very little environment in a world of 12 to 15 billion. Fewer environmentalists.
No, I would hope the human race could develop a respect for life irregardless of faith. And protecting the unborn is a key aspect of such a development.
Hello dirtboy
I don't think there is much prospect for this. Population pressures effect a devaluation of life except on a personal level, together with a desensitization toward other cultures, races, and belief systems.
This is a prevailing philosophy in some of the more scary places. India comes to mind.
There is absolutely no reason to exclude those who have been married and divorced. She could still be innocent.
I don't think there is much prospect for this. Population pressures effect a devaluation of life except on a personal level, together with a desensitization toward other cultures, races, and belief systems. So we just throw in the towel and start killing each other? Sorry, but I'm more optimistic than that. There will be a lot more killing before the world changes. But one must start somewhere, and the journey will be a long, arduous one. This is a prevailing philosophy in some of the more scary places. India comes to mind. The great genocides of this century are the products of European minds - Nazism, communism and abortionism. Western liberal intellectuals are far more frightening to me than religious zealots.
You want them to monitor my reproductive habits and punish me if I abort a child. You want them to monitor doctors too. I couldn't care less about your "reproductive habits." Nor do I want to monitor them. E-e-w-w. But I do care if you or others are killing children. It is the proper role of government to prevent the killing of children. And by all means, YES, put abortionists in prison! "Population pressures effect a devaluation of life except on a personal level, together with a desensitization toward other cultures, races, and belief systems.
This is a prevailing philosophy in some of the more scary places. India comes to mind."
For a self-proclaimed multi-culturalist, you have quite a bigoted attitude toward India and Indians!
Yet, I read thoughtful essays by befuddled Christians, asking "Why do people fear us?" [because you would forcibly impose your morality on others]
This is ludicrous, you libs have been forcing your immorality on others, for the last 30+ years through the court system, supposedly for civil rights, free speech, and "for the children". Take a look around you and see how immoral society has become. Is your front door unlocked at night? Why not? The only reason degenerates fear us is they may have to give up their victimhood and realize that what they do is socially unacceptable.
There is absolutely no reason to exclude those who have been married and divorced. She could still be innocent Well, I'll answer that with my favorite quote from the article:
People disagreed with Hilter, and rightfully so. The idea that people disagree does not make them bad. It's a liberal dodge to cut off debate just because people strongly disagree.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. I am not a liberal. I surely do not cut off debate. I disagree and have little hope of changing you. The point I am making is that we both desire government to protect us from each others morality. I am far more concerned with the implications of this than abortion law.
The pro-abortion side always tries to exclude the "third party" in the debate. It's not just me telling anyone what to do with their body, there is a third life dependent on the mother's decision. If the common belief were that abortion stops a life, then far fewer people, regardless of their religous convictions, would opt for abortion as casually as they do today.
We differ on the significance of a fetus. I don't believe human life is part of a holy spirit. I believe it is a very successful species, to the detriment of itseslf and all other species.
It's a begrudging credit to the pro-abortion side that they have effectively kept the "third party" out of all discussions. It's framed as a matter of "freedom of choice" (who can be against freedom) rather than "right or wrong".
You believe it is "right" for humans to produce as many of themselves as they can. I believe that is wrong.
I believe it is "right" for us to assist humans in curbing their reproduction, for we as a species, are destroying our habitat and the future we hope to give the children we want and have. You think that is "wrong".
The implications of these kinds of morality battles become terrifying when you think of how many competing belief systems there are in the world.
You and I are philosophical twins and allies, however, when compared to what is coming.
This is ludicrous, you libs have been forcing your immorality on others, for the last 30+ years through the court system, supposedly for civil rights, free speech, and "for the children". Take a look around you and see how immoral society has become.
I am not immoral. Do you think I am?
Is your front door unlocked at night? Why not?
I only live where I don't have to lock myself in. There are few such places left. I come here to argue with you guys about the future of such luxuries.
The only reason degenerates fear us is they may have to give up their victimhood and realize that what they do is socially unacceptable.
In fact, you've shown so much anti-Indian bigotry, I'm wondering what Jai would think. Jai, are you out there? If you are, check out replies 32, 29, and 23 for portrayals of Indians that I would consider ignorant and insulting.
The only reason degenerates fear us is they may have to give up their victimhood and realize that what they do is socially unacceptable.
Do you think I am a degenerate? Why?
We differ on the significance of a fetus. I don't believe human life is part of a holy spirit. I believe it is a very successful species, to the detriment of itseslf and all other species. It almost seems in your belief system that humans are worse than rats. I happen to believe a fetus is human. It may be a blob of cells, but I'm just a bigger blob. Any philosophy that marginalizes human life makes extermination easier. As Herman Hess said, we understand less and less what it means to be human nowadays, and as a result men are shot wholesale.
You believe it is "right" for humans to produce as many of themselves as they can. I believe that is wrong.
I believe it is "right" for us to assist humans in curbing their reproduction, for we as a species, are destroying our habitat and the future we hope to give the children we want and have. You think that is "wrong". So would it be OK for someone to shoot you to curb overpopulation? Shoot whole populations to save the environment? Treat humans like a virus infecting Gaia? Remember, you're one of the viruses.
The implications of these kinds of morality battles become terrifying when you think of how many competing belief systems there are in the world. That's not frightening - it's enlightening. The statists wish to marginalize belief, even make it scary and frightening, to dry up its live-affirming wellspring, and make it easier to convert us from humans into domesticated livestock.
For a self-proclaimed multi-culturalist, you have quite a bigoted attitude toward India and Indians!
When did I proclaim myself a multi culturalist? I used the example to caution you that this is just a small difference between Americans. True multi culturalism will wreak havoc with your entire belief system.
I thought I made that clear.
I am not immoral. Do you think I am?
I don't know you from Adam, how would I know?
Do you approve of abortion?
There are many more that I could add to this list, but in the interest of keeping it short. If you answer "yes" to any of the above, then, yes, I think you are immoral.
The great genocides of this century are the products of European minds
For genocide to be known, it must be reported, published, and talked about. The genocides of which you speak were the products of European minds and publicity.
The ongoing genocides in Africa and Asia are amoung and between Africans and Asian. Americans don't read about it. South Americans kill lots of people too. It ain't genocide till their is a Spielberg.
Do you believe in false gods?
Hmmmmm...how do I know which one is true?
"When did I proclaim myself a multi culturalist?"
libra, reply #23: "This is just a small dose of multi culturalism. You and I have diametrically opposing views on this one subject..." Forgive me for assuming that your inclusion of yourself in your example of "multi-culturalism," meant that you embraced multi-culturalism. It is now quite clear that you do NOT embrace multi-culturalism, nor "tolerance." In fact, you predict dire consequences for America upon further expansion of our Hindu population, which you seem to find quite disgusting and "scary."
Note the emphasis on the word "great" in my statement - at least 30 million each killed by Stalin, Mao, Hitler and abortionists. I don't think that any killings in South America have reached these levels. The point is, Russia and Europe were not overpopulated - instead, this was a vicious, evil political process that started by treating humans or a group of humans as something less than human. And, when you justify abortion as a means of population control, realize that it is a VERY short leap from killing fetuses to killing adults in the name of saving the planet.
So would it be OK for someone to shoot you to curb overpopulation?
No, but in countries where human life is already devalued because of the sheer numbers of them, it is routine.
Masai, Kikuyu and other Bantus are shot on sight if they are on foot in the game parks of Kenya. There is no trial. There are no Jesse Jackson candle light vigils. The assumption is that the individual was going to harm Kenya's protected species. End of story.
And the population of Kenya pretty much agrees. There are always those pesky University newspapers, but Kenyans know which species has value to them. That has been made very clear.
Kenya doesn't have human capital. It has reacreational zoology, for white people.
Now this didn't take a revolution. They figured this out all by themselves. Econ 101
Masai, Kikuyu and other Bantus are shot on sight if they are on foot in the game parks of Kenya. There is no trial. There are no Jesse Jackson candle light vigils. The assumption is that the individual was going to harm Kenya's protected species. End of story. And how is this significantly different from killing fetuses to curb overpopulation?
And, when you justify abortion as a means of population control, realize that it is a VERY short leap from killing fetuses to killing adults in the name of saving the planet.
Actually each time it occurs, the populations don't equate the mass killings with population control. It is done to protect against competing belief systems and to protect habitat.
The Russian revolution comes to mind. You say it wasn't population control. But it was. Dan Rather does not have to proclaim it to be so.
Hitler was direct about his intentions. Stalin was not. Nor Pinochet. Pol Pot, well I don't think I know all the reasons for that.
Hmmmmm...how do I know which one is true?
Now, hang with me here, if you can. We were talking about what you said about Christians. Following along in that context, there is only one true God.
So, over to you...answer the question.
In fact, you predict dire consequences for America upon further expansion of our Hindu population, which you seem to find quite disgusting and "scary."
Take the kids to India. Run down to the Ganges to see the bloated animal carcasses, feces, and body parts float by. It's a kick.
Actually each time it occurs, the populations don't equate the mass killings with population control. It is done to protect against competing belief systems and to protect habitat. Say WHAT? Maybe this is the official case in China with their forced abortions, but in the U.S. it's usually because the baby would be an inconvenience. You are quite fond of overapplying your population model to all situations without contemplating the complexities. And, BTW, the Russian revolution came immediately after WWI, after Russia had suffered ghastly casualties. I don't think they had a population problem at the time. The Armenian and Ukrainian genocides were about politics. You really need to get your theories more in line with history...
Now, hang with me here, if you can.
I can do this for perhaps another 10 minutes. I get sucked in each time I engage Americans at home. The Free Republic is a full time job sometimes.
We were talking about what you said about Christians. Following along in that context, there is only one true God.
So, over to you...answer the question.
I haven't the faintest idea what you mean. I have never had any indication that there is a supernatural presence in the world. I do think ESP is kind of a kick. I have experienced a few metaphysical phenomena.
My parents weren't religious. And I am a philosophy major--so I am a tough case. I just don't have any need of such things. I am saddened that I require the protection of the state, however, to protect me from the excesses of religion everywhere.
Take the kids to India. Run down to the Ganges to see the bloated animal carcasses, feces, and body parts float by. It's a kick. Well, you've really exposed yourself now. Didn't take me to do it! Terrible living conditions have little to do with population. Some of the highest-density populations on earth have some of the highest living standards. E.g., Tokyo. And OTOH, some of the lowest-density areas have the most squalor. E.g., Appalachia. Being Indian has nothing to do with it.
You serve as an excellent reminder that
liberals do not think, they feel. If
you were capable of honest thought, you would
realize most people do not want the government
protecting us from one another. We want and need less government Now
we realize that you think of an embryo, fetus
or a baby as an inconvenient tissue mass, but,
lady, that is no watermelon, not a puppy
nor is it a blob of protoplasm. It is
ALIVE! Dead cells do NOT multiply!
I am saddened that I require the
protection of the state, however, to protect me from the excesses of religion everywhere.
And those excesses would be? I would prefer you give examples "pre-protective of the state".
I can do this for perhaps another 10 minutes. I get sucked in each time I engage Americans at home. The Free Republic is a full time job sometimes.
I'm at work, just like you.
It would change the image of Miss America, and not necessarily for the better." Prove it. Let me spell it out. She could have been married, divorced, innocent, the most beautiful of all the contestents inside and out. Why should she be excluded? Never mind. You know she shouldn't. She still has to compete on the same level. Is there something unattractive about being married? Give me a break!
Is there something unattractive about being married? No, not at all! Marriage is a beautiful thing. But that's not the issue here. It seem to me the issue IS essentially one of freedom of association. Like the Boy Scouts, the organizers of the "MISS America" pageant should have the freedom to define their standards as they wish. That would include moral standards --such as not having had an abortion... ...and arbitrary standards, e.g. marital status, or minimum height, or maximum weight. Fair? NO. But it's THEIR choice. You write as if there were a "right" to be a Miss America contestant, even if you are a "Mrs." (Oh, btw, there IS a "Mrs. America" contest for those who go for such things...)
You write as if there were a "right" to be a Miss America contestant I do no such thing. You only assume it. And I didn't say a thing in defense of including those who have had abortions or are immoral. They most certainly should have guidelines they need to follow. And freedom of association is a blessing most of us don't fully realise. But so is the ability to debate the guidelines in order to make the most informed decisions and create the most desired results. It does no good to limit our decisions out of fear and illogical bias. I have seen nothing to make me believe that unmarried women are better in any way then married and divorced women simply because they have been married and divorced. I am not talking about your every day divorce. I am talking about an innocent person. It could happen. If they held to their standards of character and beauty it would weed out the others. But lets be completely truthful in the matter or it has no foundation and nothing inspiring about it at all. Rather something selfish and ugly.
Stick to what I say and not what you imagine are my beliefs.
And freedom of association is a blessing most of us don't fully realise. But so is the ability to debate the guidelines in order to make the most informed decisions and create the most desired results Freedom of association is a right. "The ability to debate guidelines" is NOT. What makes you think you have any entitlement whatsoever to "debate guidelines," or to determine the "most desired results"? Those things are completely the prerogative of the organization --whether the Boy Scouts, the Miss America Pageant, the Knights of Columbus, the Green Party, or anyone else.
I'm glad libra got on this thread. She is a shining example of the Margaret Sanger-style thinking of the liberal left. Margaret Sanger's true purpose in promoting abortion was to limit the population of those she deemed UNFIT to live. Planned Parenthood, Sanger's monstrous brainchild, has tried to keep Sanger's writings out of the public eye; but more and more of her racist and eugenicist ideology is coming to light. libra in her attacks on Hindus and Indians unwittingly exposes the dirty little secret of the pro-abortion left: they despise, they hate, they fear the burgeoning population of those they consider "inferior" to themselves.
The changes were approved last month by the Miss America Organization in order to bring the pageant in line with New Jersey's discrimination laws, according to court documents.
Remember......... this is the SAME state that is going after the Boys Scouts for having some kind of moral backbone. Which organization that has higher standards than 'in the gutter' will be the next victim of our multicultural witchhunters?
(not quite on subject, but referring to whomever was pointing out replies by number;I.E. #34, #47, #12...... After this post they'll be #35, #48, #13. Bottom line, you can't refer to them by their numbers, 'cause they'll change so fast!
pardon the interruption but would some of you go to the Phonies & Frauds(thread VI) to cast you votes again & again for the biggest phony of them all, Whoraldo Rivers!
Let's show TIME mag FReeper Power in Action!
BOY! It sure is dark in here! (I have head up ass on that #34 numbering, remark.) I thought I knew what I was talking about, but it only took me looking at my OWN post to show me the error of my thinking. (Doncha' just wish others could do this on their own?)
Remember......... this is the SAME state that is going after the Boys Scouts for having some kind of moral backbone. I know, I know --don't remind me! I live in New Jersey! :-( referring to whomever was pointing out replies by number;I.E. #34, #47, #12...... After this post they'll be #35, #48, #13. Bottom line, you can't refer to them by their numbers, 'cause they'll change so fast! I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm the one who was referring to posts (#23, 29, and 32, to be exact) --they're still posts #23, 29, and 32.
Oh, OK, just saw your post #67! Well, we all make dumb mistakes here (I do anyway) and end up making ourselves look silly. But you had the grace to correct yourself!
The new rules would require simply that they sign a document saying "I am unmarried'' and "I am not
pregnant and I am not the natural or adoptive parent of any child.'' While moms still are barred, the
change means that women with an abortion or child given up for adoption in their past would now be
eligible.
This makes no sense at all. If a woman is the parent of a child given up for adoption in the past, she is obviously the "natural" parent of the child. I have not seen this statement about adoption in other accounts of the rule-change, and I think this is an interpretation designed to put the best face on what the ruling really says: It's OK to have an abortion but not OK to give a child life.
I think this is an interpretation designed to put the best face on what the ruling really says: It's OK to have an abortion but not OK to give a child life I agree. The logical extension of this change in rules is that abortion, and giving up a child for adoption, are deemed equivalent "choices." They should have stuck to the old rules. No court challenge had been brought.
I'm waiting for gay activists to insist that drag queens be eligible for entry into Miss America contest. BTW, the officials are now rethinking the whole thing. Excerpts from article at cnn.com: Miss America pageant chief
rethinks more liberal rules
ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (AP) -- The
head of the Miss America Organization said
Tuesday the pageant may back off plans to
begin allowing women who had divorced or
had abortions.
In his first public statements about the change, pageant CEO Robert Beck
said the board had agreed to defer implementing the new rules pending talks
with state pageant operators who had objected to the change.
Beck said the national organization planned to issue a statement later
Tuesday.
Beck's comments came a day after The Associated Press reported that the
Miss America Pageant board voted in June to lift its ban on women who
have been married or had abortions.
Traditionalists were furious.
"I was shocked when I heard it," said Miss America 1993 Leanza Cornett.
Allowing contestants with divorces and abortions in their pasts will strip a
time-honored gleam of virtue from their rhinestone tiaras, Miss Cornett said
Monday.
"There are still little girls out there who have who held Miss America and
others like her up on a pedestal," she said. "When you're sitting around the
dinner table with your daughter or your little niece, it'll bring up so many
questions. I'm shocked."
"Miss America has a long history of high moral standards and traditions, and
I'm opposed to anything that changes that," said Libby Taylor, executive
director of the Miss Kentucky Pageant and president of the National
Association of Miss America State Pageants.
The state pageants went to court to fight the change, and the Miss America
Organization agreed to back off for this year's pageant, scheduled for
Saturday at Convention Hall.
"The most important thing Miss America does is she's a role model," said
Lucy Ours, the reigning Miss West Virginia. "If she's been married and
divorced by age 24, people might not look at her as a very good role
model."
"What will we do when Hindus are petitioning for religious freedom to burn their dead in the Lake of the Ozarks?" Actually, cremation is becoming the more preferred means of disposing of the mortal remains among Christians and others who used to use burial and other methods. The advantages are obvious in terms of land utilization (use of land for the living rather than the departed), environment (quick purification rather that slow decay), recycling of the body's elements through efficient thermo-chemical reactions, etc. In the modern world where vital resources such as wood need to be preserved, electric crematoriums have replaced cremations on outdoor pyres.
No, I would hope the human race could develop a respect
for life irregardless of faith. And protecting the unborn is a
key aspect of such a development." - dirtboy "Hello dirtboy India is "scary" to you because life is respected
more there? Please elaborate.
Though the top of this thread was some time ago, I seem to recall Raoul stating that having an abortion was the same as killing a child, because but for the abortion, the child would have been born. If that is the test for being labelled a child-murderer, then how does the use of contraceptives fit into your model? The pill prevents implantation of a viable fertilized egg into a woman's uterus by breaking down the tissue at the end of her cycle (the baby is thrown out with the menses - to be blunt). Is a sexually active couple using the pill as a contraceptive committing murder? Personally, I don't believe there is any legitimate middle ground in this debate. If human life is Sacred (people are supernatural beings encased in earthly bodies, all hoping to die and go back to heaven), then it must be so from the moment of conception. In that case nothing should be done at any stage nor under any circumstance which might jeopardize the development of that egg. If life is not Sacred, then respect for it and how that is integrated into our laws is social construct which may be changed by general agreement, and according to our present laws, abortion is no more "immoral" than taking the pill or killing a chicken for dinner. While I do not believe in the existence of a Christian God, I also do not think abortion is very helpful to our society (in the sense that it is just another easy answer for those who wish to avoid the consequences of their actions) and should be avoided in all but extreme cases (rape, utter stupidity, etc). Also, I think Libra has some good points about the ethnocentrism being displayed by those he/she calls "Thumpers". I think it wise to remember that there are many societies (China is a good example) where the real sacrifice a couple makes is to NOT have children. Perhaps the religiously inclined think this is in violation of God's law to "go forth and multiply". The fact is any simple fool can breed kids. In an already overpopulated country such as China, it takes real self control and a profound sense of responsibility to not get pregnant. In short, I personally don't see a moral problem with Miss America having been divorced or having had children, I see a P.C. problem. Once again you have some outside group of indignant do-gooders trying to force the contest into becoming something it's not. It is a contest for young women who have never been married or had children. If the organizers wanted to include married women or women nearing the end of their third trimester, they would have done so. The poster who said men would be eligible for the contest next was not so far off.
THANKS FOR THAT UPDATE! It's encouraging, but I'm afraid they've let the camel's nose under the tent, and he's going in all the way now: If the Miss America Organization backs off and re-instates the old rules, the feminists will file suit.
Darn. I was hoping for a rule on sex changes. All that money on a sex change and no Miss America? I protest.
Once again you have some outside group of indignant do-gooders trying to force the contest into becoming something it's not. Very well said! The only difference I'd have with you is that, in this case, there seem to have been no indignant do-gooders. (A beauty pageant is by definition so beyond the pale of feminist good taste, that I think N.O.W. probably never gave it much attention!) The rule change seems to have been inspired merely out of fear of potential lawsuits! As for the pill: it IS abortifacient. So you're right --using it really is the equivalent of having an abortion. I can't see that other forms of contraception (those that prevent fertilization) approach the moral evil of abortion.
[
Refresh
|
Top
|
Last
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
1 Posted on 09/14/1999 06:55:22 PDT by fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
[
Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
[
Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: Doctor Raoul
[
Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: Doctor Raoul and all
[
Reply | To 16 | Top | Last ]
To: VeritatisSplendor
[
Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ]
To: Doctor Raoul
[
Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 23 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 23 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 27 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 27 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]
To: dirtboy
[
Reply | To 26 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 32 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 29 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
To: SpiritOfFreedom"The word 'Miss' stands for something,'' [said Miss Delaware, Kama Boland]..."It would be a shame if they allow it. It would change the image of Miss America, and not necessarily for the better."
[
Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]
To: Doctor Raoul
[
Reply | To 30 | Top | Last ]
To: hattend
[
Reply | To 36 | Top | Last ]
To: libra, Jai
[
Reply | To 35 | Top | Last ]
To: hattend
[
Reply | To 36 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 35 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
Are you homosexual?
Are you Bi-sexual?
Have you ever had an extra-marital affair?
Do you believe in false gods?
Do you think Klinton has made America a better, more safe, place? Is he the president of the century (my sister says that one - God forbid)
[
Reply | To 39 | Top | Last ]
To: dirtboy
[
Reply | To 34 | Top | Last ]
To: hattend
[
Reply | To 44 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 43 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 45 | Top | Last ]
To: dirtboy
[
Reply | To 42 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 49 | Top | Last ]
To: dirtboy
[
Reply | To 48 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 46 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 47 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 51 | Top | Last ]
To: hattend
[
Reply | To 52 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 53 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 23 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 55 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]
To: SpiritOfFreedom
[
Reply | To 59 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 60 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
[
Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]
To: SpiritOfFreedom
[
Reply | To 61 | Top | Last ]
To: Doctor Raoul
[
Reply | To 62 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: elsie
[
Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]
To: elsie
[
Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]
To: elsie
[
Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]
To: elsie
[
Reply | To 67 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: madprof98
[
Reply | To 70 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism!
[
Reply | To 71 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
News Plus
[
Reply | To 23 | Top | Last ]
To: libra
"I don't think there is much prospect for this. Population
pressures effect a devaluation of life except on a personal level,
together with a desensitization toward other cultures, races, and
belief systems.
"This is a prevailing philosophy in some of the more scary
places. India comes to mind." - libra
News Plus
[
Reply | To 32 | Top | Last ]
To: fie~on~feminism and Dr. Raoul
[
Reply | To 64 | Top | Last ]
To: PoisedWoman
[
Reply | To 72 | Top | Last ]
To: SpiritOfFreedom
[
Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]
To: Melinator
[
Reply | To 75 | Top | Last ]
FreeRepublic
, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC
