Model Gisele Slams Church

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

yea, because christians go around bombing abortion clinics
don't lump islam and christianity together - one teaches fundamentally to be evil and the other to be humble and good.

I don't know that I would go that far. But you do make an important point: there is a difference between Islam and Christianity. Our loonies are less dangerous.

There's a fundamental difference in the Bible and Koran, and more importantly in their interpretation that makes Islamic fundamentalists strap bombs to their chest, and Christian fundamentalists try to teach Creationism in school. I don't approve of either, but there's no comparison.

Elaborate...

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's an abstinence debate? Contraception works. Virginity pledges don't. Where's the debate?

That's the worst logic I've ever seen. Contraception works if used correctly. Abstinence works if used correctly. Do them incorrectly and holy crap, they might not work.

Yooooou on the other hand are discussing whether or not people actually live up to their word. Since most people are lying, cheating scum, I would say no.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
As for the second question, encouraging contraception is not the same as encouraging promiscuity. Anything can be done to excess.

I'm not too sure where you got the idea about the objects encouraging, I'm talking about humans encouraging. Of course, being promiscuous certainly is made easier by contraceptives or else you might just be having your own personal contraceptive for 9 months .

Originally posted by: jjsole
Where's the ideal in calling someone a sinner after they used a condom to prevent from getting aids from their wife, who aquired it in a transfusion? Where's the ideal in preventing the spread of disease among married partners? Where's the ideal in preventing additional births in a family of 5 who doesn't have adequate resources to raise the child? Is the Pope going to offer child support and daycare?

Who's more immoral and represents the least 'ideals' in these circumstances, those who use contraception here, or the Pope, who 'forbids' one from using contraception here?

In every example you gave, you could just not have sex and achieve the same goal. The point is that you're putting more emphasis on sex than everything else . Frankly, look at the A->B of sex. In normal situations, Sex->Baby (normal situations bars infertility, etc). That's where the idea of this comes from. Of course, you can attempt to get out of normal situations, but accidents happen .

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: cmv
Props to her. The Church is nuts.

That says it best.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: lupi
I think she is just as ridiculous in thinking that some don't share the church views just because she doesn't. And she's probably just mad since her personal porn vid got posted and her new boyfriend is now the father to be for his previous girlfriend.

I bet she blames the church for all that...

Sounds like she would benefit from attending every once in a while..

Why, so she can learn to attack those that don't share her beliefs, like christians (err, catholics) are doing to her right now?

How inspiring...become a christian so you can learn how to sharpen your attacks on those who don't follow your beliefs!

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You know that in about an hour or less, this will turn into a debate over abstinence .

To make sure I'm not wrong, I'll start it on the course .

Originally posted by: mooglemania85
"If she thinks she doesn't have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?"

How about just not having sex then? My god, did I just solve the problem before it even started :Q.

It's not as simple. Sex is a very pleasurable act and, if done properly, the risk of pregnancy is almost negligble. The doctrine of preaching abstinence and protectionless sex is detrimental and actually counterproductive - when those who have been trying to follow it suddenly decide to go ahead, they are not prepared and/or feel guilty and go without condoms and other forms of protection.

The archaic beliefs of the Catholic church need to be reconsidered and modernized. Preach waiting for marriage all you want, but temper it with the proper education that if they do engage in sex that they need to use protection. Teaching people that condoms are bad is just plain idiotic.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: jjsole
Let's start with the Pope's shameful mindbending and foundation-less position on contraception.

Eh? There's a foundation for it. Not to say I necessarily agree with it, but there's an ideal behind it.

I ask you this though... if people have sex because it feels good... why can't we justify other things that feel good simply with the same reasoning? Why do you look at a glutton with a shameful eye because he simply loves to eat. Yet someone that loves sex tends to receive an amiable smile (or a sexual smirk from men if it's a woman )

Of course there's an ideal behind it. And it's an arbitrary and antiquated ideal from the depths of the history of our species. The idea that sex outside of procreation is wrong is mind-boggling to me.

As for the second question, encouraging contraception is not the same as encouraging promiscuity. Anything can be done to excess.

The Church can believe what it wants regarding premarital sex, but the problem is that this policy has aided the spread of HIV in Africa and other places.

Abortion is a different matter. It should be easy to see why taking a human life would be considered unethical

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: brandonb
The world would probably be better off if people followed the Church rather than Gisele Bundchen.

That said, she is free to speak her opinion, while the church is able to do so as well. Nobody is pointing a gun to your or her head telling her what she can or can't do or what ideas to follow.

In the meantime, I'm following the church.

The world would be better if nobody used condoms and birthed every child? Are we living in the fscking middle ages? The world doesn't need anymore goddamned people.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: crownjules
It's not as simple. Sex is a very pleasurable act and, if done properly, the risk of pregnancy is almost negligble. The doctrine of preaching abstinence and protectionless sex is detrimental and actually counterproductive - when those who have been trying to follow it suddenly decide to go ahead, they are not prepared and/or feel guilty and go without condoms and other forms of protection.

The archaic beliefs of the Catholic church need to be reconsidered and modernized. Preach waiting for marriage all you want, but temper it with the proper education that if they do engage in sex that they need to use protection. Teaching people that condoms are bad is just plain idiotic.

Well, here's how I see it. People are too stupid to think for themselves. They can't realize, "hey, maybe having sex might not be a good idea, because all it takes is one slip up and bam." You end up putting quite a bit on the line for maybe 15 minutes (5 if you're a typical ATOT'r :laugh: ) of pleasure. How many times have you heard people make a remark like, "you shouldn't simply think of the present but also the future in the actions that you make." For example, it's a lot like someone going to a college because that's where their SO is going. I think everyone here would say that if your SO going there is the only reason, then you're making a poor choice. You're essentially looking at the here and now instead of looking 5 years down the road at the job that you'll get with your education.

I understand what you're trying to say and it makes sense. To me, it seems like they have a choice... set up a definitive position... (i.e. sex is for procreation and should be done in the confines of marriage) or try to cover all your bases (i.e. sex should be for marriage only but if you do happen to do it outside, be protected!) You can see how the latter may be better to teach someone, but the fact is that you're promoting ideals for an activity in which that activity contradicts your own teachings. So I think they're just trying to have that definitive strong position rather than trying to be the blanket.

 

[StevenYoo]

Supposedly, Adriana Lima is a virgin

 

[OutHouse]

The Catholic church is so dusty is pathetic.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's an abstinence debate? Contraception works. Virginity pledges don't. Where's the debate?

That's the worst logic I've ever seen. Contraception works if used correctly. Abstinence works if used correctly. Do them incorrectly and holy crap, they might not work.

Yooooou on the other hand are discussing whether or not people actually live up to their word. Since most people are lying, cheating scum, I would say no.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
As for the second question, encouraging contraception is not the same as encouraging promiscuity. Anything can be done to excess.

I'm not too sure where you got the idea about the objects encouraging, I'm talking about humans encouraging. Of course, being promiscuous certainly is made easier by contraceptives or else you might just be having your own personal contraceptive for 9 months .

Originally posted by: jjsole
Where's the ideal in calling someone a sinner after they used a condom to prevent from getting aids from their wife, who aquired it in a transfusion? Where's the ideal in preventing the spread of disease among married partners? Where's the ideal in preventing additional births in a family of 5 who doesn't have adequate resources to raise the child? Is the Pope going to offer child support and daycare?

Who's more immoral and represents the least 'ideals' in these circumstances, those who use contraception here, or the Pope, who 'forbids' one from using contraception here?

In every example you gave, you could just not have sex and achieve the same goal. The point is that you're putting more emphasis on sex than everything else . Frankly, look at the A->B of sex. In normal situations, Sex->Baby (normal situations bars infertility, etc). That's where the idea of this comes from. Of course, you can attempt to get out of normal situations, but accidents happen .

I didn't mean that contraception works if you use it, I meant that it works when it's taught and encouraged, as opposed to teaching abstinence.

And promiscuity is inherently risky. Just like riding a motorcycle. Helmets don't make riding a motorcycle any easier, just safer. A slut (or man-whore, if you prefer) will whore it up regardless of safety.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: jjsole
Let's start with the Pope's shameful mindbending and foundation-less position on contraception.

Eh? There's a foundation for it. Not to say I necessarily agree with it, but there's an ideal behind it.

I ask you this though... if people have sex because it feels good... why can't we justify other things that feel good simply with the same reasoning? Why do you look at a glutton with a shameful eye because he simply loves to eat. Yet someone that loves sex tends to receive an amiable smile (or a sexual smirk from men if it's a woman )

Where's the ideal in calling someone a sinner after they used a condom to prevent from getting aids from their wife, who aquired it in a transfusion? Where's the ideal in preventing the spread of disease among married partners? Where's the ideal in preventing additional births in a family of 5 who doesn't have adequate resources to raise the child? Is the Pope going to offer child support and daycare?

Who's more immoral and represents the least 'ideals' in these circumstances, those who use contraception here, or the Pope, who 'forbids' one from using contraception here?

Me thinks one who has 1 child they barely could afford, much less the 3-5+ as is often seen, ain't delving too much into the morality of what they do. Of course it wouldn't be immoral to say, have more children than you could provide for.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
I didn't mean that contraception works if you use it, I meant that it works when it's taught and encouraged, as opposed to teaching abstinence.

There's really multiple facets of the debate. Frankly, abstinence has the lowest "failure rate" because as long as you follow the process, it doesn't fail. Condoms can still fail .

But now, if you suspected that condoms wouldn't be more accepted than abstinence by the current world, I'd call you loony . If I told a kid, "Hey, would you like to have pleasure while being safe or not have pleasure at all" .... what would I expect him to say? "No, mister, I don't want pleasure." Heck no! But yet again, that relates to the idea of thinking to the here and now. That idea also relates to the concept of controlled substances (even including pot in that).

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
And promiscuity is inherently risky. Just like riding a motorcycle. Helmets don't make riding a motorcycle any easier, just safer. A slut (or man-whore, if you prefer) will whore it up regardless of safety.

Well, to be honest, I wanted to use the term "recreational sex," but I forgot what term you used with sex to mean doing it if you want to. I tend to have a problem with remembering nouns . Being promiscuous has a bit of a negative connotation to it ( or so I think ), but recreational sex doesn't... I don't think.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: crownjules
It's not as simple. Sex is a very pleasurable act and, if done properly, the risk of pregnancy is almost negligble. The doctrine of preaching abstinence and protectionless sex is detrimental and actually counterproductive - when those who have been trying to follow it suddenly decide to go ahead, they are not prepared and/or feel guilty and go without condoms and other forms of protection.

The archaic beliefs of the Catholic church need to be reconsidered and modernized. Preach waiting for marriage all you want, but temper it with the proper education that if they do engage in sex that they need to use protection. Teaching people that condoms are bad is just plain idiotic.

Well, here's how I see it. People are too stupid to think for themselves. They can't realize, "hey, maybe having sex might not be a good idea, because all it takes is one slip up and bam." You end up putting quite a bit on the line for maybe 15 minutes (5 if you're a typical ATOT'r :laugh: ) of pleasure. How many times have you heard people make a remark like, "you shouldn't simply think of the present but also the future in the actions that you make." For example, it's a lot like someone going to a college because that's where their SO is going. I think everyone here would say that if your SO going there is the only reason, then you're making a poor choice. You're essentially looking at the here and now instead of looking 5 years down the road at the job that you'll get with your education.

I understand what you're trying to say and it makes sense. To me, it seems like they have a choice... set up a definitive position... (i.e. sex is for procreation and should be done in the confines of marriage) or try to cover all your bases (i.e. sex should be for marriage only but if you do happen to do it outside, be protected!) You can see how the latter may be better to teach someone, but the fact is that you're promoting ideals for an activity in which that activity contradicts your own teachings. So I think they're just trying to have that definitive strong position rather than trying to be the blanket.

I see where you're coming from now. I agree that unplanned pregnancies are a huge problem. I've seen it happen again and again among many of my family and friends. The worst part is that it's so easy to prevent these days. Having a child without the means to support it is the single most irresponsible thing you can do.

Also, it's pretty damned irritating to meet a cute girl, then meet her cute kids 5 min. later. Seriously, people enough with the kid-making. Do you have any idea what having a baby does to a vagina? 21 yr olds with the vagina of a 45 year old for the freakin' loss.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: lupi
I think she is just as ridiculous in thinking that some don't share the church views just because she doesn't. And she's probably just mad since her personal porn vid got posted and her new boyfriend is now the father to be for his previous girlfriend.


But mainly more T&A and less talk is good

uh.... LINK!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Crap, I am way too lazy to do the fancy quotes. I'll just respond in a nice compact fashion.

Anyway, MEN are created equal. Ideas aren't. Is the idea that the world is flat the equal of the idea that the world is around. They're both ideas. The difference is, one is supported by empirical data.

One was later supported by scientific data, until then they were both equal ideas.

Did you just cite the Bible as a factual history?

Hmm, I think I cited it as a reference documents for those whom have certain beliefs in comparison to you stated their beliefs are false based on...

And as for the media "bowing" before religion, they do that every time they consider religion a valid source for an opinion.

Yeah, cause the reason for millions or billions of people believing or acting a certain way would never have basis for inclusion in a news story.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's an abstinence debate? Contraception works. Virginity pledges don't. Where's the debate?

That's the worst logic I've ever seen. Contraception works if used correctly. Abstinence works if used correctly. Do them incorrectly and holy crap, they might not work.

Yooooou on the other hand are discussing whether or not people actually live up to their word. Since most people are lying, cheating scum, I would say no.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
As for the second question, encouraging contraception is not the same as encouraging promiscuity. Anything can be done to excess.

I'm not too sure where you got the idea about the objects encouraging, I'm talking about humans encouraging. Of course, being promiscuous certainly is made easier by contraceptives or else you might just be having your own personal contraceptive for 9 months .

Originally posted by: jjsole
Where's the ideal in calling someone a sinner after they used a condom to prevent from getting aids from their wife, who aquired it in a transfusion? Where's the ideal in preventing the spread of disease among married partners? Where's the ideal in preventing additional births in a family of 5 who doesn't have adequate resources to raise the child? Is the Pope going to offer child support and daycare?

Who's more immoral and represents the least 'ideals' in these circumstances, those who use contraception here, or the Pope, who 'forbids' one from using contraception here?

In every example you gave, you could just not have sex and achieve the same goal. The point is that you're putting more emphasis on sex than everything else . Frankly, look at the A->B of sex. In normal situations, Sex->Baby (normal situations bars infertility, etc). That's where the idea of this comes from. Of course, you can attempt to get out of normal situations, but accidents happen .

Sure people could avoid sex [to appease the Pope], but where is it biblical that procreation is always the most important purpose of sex, and should be placed above all other motivations/desires? Sure, 'seed' is valued, but that is far from what is emphasized in some very erogenous passages in the bible. In fact, if you're burning with lust, the most important thing is to get married, so you can do the dilly with someone, legitimately (not so you can pound someone only if you're willing to not use contraception.)

Primarily tho, it is often the christian belief that sex bonds people [souls] together, like two rivers becoming one, which is often cited as the reason to avoid pre-marital sex. To me that says the bible impies sex between people is 'ultra-ultra-special'. But you're implying its not significant, that is if you hamper the pro-creational facilities, and should be avoided at all costs if is ever necessary to use contraception.

To that point, I believe you and the Pope are pulling that one out of your @ss, in the guise of morals or ideals. One can't pull 'ideals' out of their @ss to apply to everyone and all circumstances...that's not what ideals are for. Not murdering could be considered an 'ideal', however defending yourself from an attacker is not only accepted, but embraced. So to apply an 'ideal' that was pulled out of one's @ss on everyone in all circumstances, is well, ascenine. (not to mention hypocritical and of course, more importantly to the christian faith, absolutely unbiblical.)

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: cmv
Props to her. The Church is nuts.

QFT. My GirlFriend's mom, a nurse, (we're in our mid-twenties and working/living on our own) told her the HPV vaccine was against the church because it promotes sex before marriage. She then said "Cervical cancer can be treated if caught early, so I don't even see the reason why a vaccine is needed" Absolute insanity.

A person believes someone shouldn't have sex before marriage and is a nut. But thankfully all those looking to do drugs and get DUIs are ok

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Skacer

The world would be better if nobody used condoms and birthed every child? Are we living in the fscking middle ages? The world doesn't need anymore goddamned people.

Apparently you are living in the "fscking middle ages" if you believe that "goddamned people" are just a hinderance upon your life because your "world doesn't need anymore goddamned people."

Who are you to say what the right amount of people is? Did you ask to be born or brought into this world? What gives you the right to dictate how many people should be on this planet or if we need more people or not?

I guess we aren't so modern anymore, now are we? Why is modernism idiology where today somehow life is so completely different than 2000 years ago such BS to begin with? Nothing is different. People still reproduce, have the same feelings, have the same urges as before. Why are things so freaking different today? It's not...

The world would be better off in my opinion if people waited to have sex until marriage and was willing to welcome a child (instead of thinking it was a burden or needed to be aborted) into their life if she happens to get pregnant. To say sex is in our instinct and we should do it for pleasure with no reprocussions is just bs and an excuse. If we were just animals we'd have no ability to use our brains God gave us and we'd run around raping each other because of our animalistic instincts and our "needs." That sounds like the "fscking middle ages" to me. Which seems to be the direction society is headed. Sex means nothing, and neither does a pregnancy. It's just a "natural part" of our human existance and we are just animals treating it as such. "Modernism", I disagree, sounds more like barbarism.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Sure people could avoid sex[to appease the Pope]

No, you should avoid sex if you don't have the means to handle the possible outcome. A implies B, my friend... that is all there is to it.

Originally posted by: jjsole
but where is it biblical that procreation is always the most important purpose of sex, and should be placed above all other motivations/desires? Sure, 'seed' is valued, but that is far from what is emphasized in some very erogenous passages in the bible. In fact, if you're burning with lust, the most important thing is to get married, so you can do the dilly with someone, legitimately (not so you can pound someone only if you're willing to not use contraception.)

What other reasons for sex are there if not baby-making or lust? I don't recall a single time lust is considered a good thing in the bible, so I'd presume that the Catholic church is taking the only good (in relation to the bible) thing about it.

Originally posted by: jjsole
But you're implying its not significant, that is if you hamper the pro-creational facilities, and should be avoided at all costs if is ever necessary to use contraception.

I'm a bit tired, you're going to have to tell me what you're talking about here...

Originally posted by: jjsole
To that point, I believe you and the Pope are pulling that one out of your @ss, in the guise of morals or ideals. One can't pull 'ideals' out of their @ss to apply to everyone and all circumstances...that's not what ideals are for. Not murdering could be considered an 'ideal', however defending yourself from an attacker is not only accepted, but embraced. So to apply an 'ideal' that was pulled out of one's @ss on everyone in all circumstances, is well, ascenine. (not to mention hypocritical and of course, more importantly to the christian faith, absolutely unbiblical.)

Uhh I've stated in here that my idea of not just having sex all willy nilly is out of pure logic. I didn't create logic, I just applied it.

Personally, I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me. I'm tired of trying to "worry about the world." No matter what I do as a person, no one will care anyway because I don't go around flashing my "playland" everywhere and using my Get Out of Jail Free card. Just don't go having sex and getting on welfare... I don't appreciate any of my hard-earned money paying for your idiocy. I absolutely hate the fact that I paid to go to college (and still am paying loans back) to get a better life and people can just milk off my success through the taxes that I pay. Note that your is being used generally, not as to single out a specific person.

 

[Homerboy]

Funny she speaks out about the Church and everyone applauds
Other performers/celebrities speak out about politics etc and everyone tells them to STFU and "You're an entertainer nothing more"

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: lupi
I think she is just as ridiculous in thinking that some don't share the church views just because she doesn't. And she's probably just mad since her personal porn vid got posted and her new boyfriend is now the father to be for his previous girlfriend.

I bet she blames the church for all that...

Sounds like she would benefit from attending every once in a while..

Why, so she can learn to attack those that don't share her beliefs, like christians (err, catholics) are doing to her right now?

How inspiring...become a christian so you can learn how to sharpen your attacks on those who don't follow your beliefs!

Uh-huh. The church states their belief and the response is to denounce the institution of the church because you don't have the same belief.

I forgot, whom's attacking again?

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Apparently you are living in the "fscking middle ages" if you believe that "goddamned people" are just a hinderance upon your life because your "world doesn't need anymore goddamned people."

Who are you to say what the right amount of people is? Did you ask to be born or brought into this world? What gives you the right to dictate how many people should be on this planet or if we need more people or not?

I guess we aren't so modern anymore, now are we? Why is modernism idiology where today somehow life is so completely different than 2000 years ago such BS to begin with? Nothing is different. People still reproduce, have the same feelings, have the same urges as before. Why are things so freaking different today? It's not...

The world would be better off in my opinion if people waited to have sex until marriage and was willing to welcome a child (instead of thinking it was a burden or needed to be aborted) into their life if she happens to get pregnant. To say sex is in our instinct and we should do it for pleasure with no reprocussions is just bs and an excuse. If we were just animals we'd have no ability to use our brains God gave us and we'd run around raping each other because of our animalistic instincts and our "needs." That sounds like the "fscking middle ages" to me. Which seems to be the direction society is headed. Sex means nothing, and neither does a pregnancy. It's just a "natural part" of our human existance and we are just animals treating it as such. "Modernism", I disagree, sounds more like barbarism.

There are points in history where people need to have a lot of children to help grow the population of a certain location. Or to help tend to farms and the such. A lot of civilized countries are no longer in this phase. You couldn't figure this out on your own without creating the most ridiculous post I've ever seen?

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Skacer

Originally posted by: brandonb
Apparently you are living in the "fscking middle ages" if you believe that "goddamned people" are just a hinderance upon your life because your "world doesn't need anymore goddamned people."

Who are you to say what the right amount of people is? Did you ask to be born or brought into this world? What gives you the right to dictate how many people should be on this planet or if we need more people or not?

I guess we aren't so modern anymore, now are we? Why is modernism idiology where today somehow life is so completely different than 2000 years ago such BS to begin with? Nothing is different. People still reproduce, have the same feelings, have the same urges as before. Why are things so freaking different today? It's not...

The world would be better off in my opinion if people waited to have sex until marriage and was willing to welcome a child (instead of thinking it was a burden or needed to be aborted) into their life if she happens to get pregnant. To say sex is in our instinct and we should do it for pleasure with no reprocussions is just bs and an excuse. If we were just animals we'd have no ability to use our brains God gave us and we'd run around raping each other because of our animalistic instincts and our "needs." That sounds like the "fscking middle ages" to me. Which seems to be the direction society is headed. Sex means nothing, and neither does a pregnancy. It's just a "natural part" of our human existance and we are just animals treating it as such. "Modernism", I disagree, sounds more like barbarism.

There are points in history where people need to have a lot of children to help grow the population of a certain location. Or to help tend to farms and the such. A lot of civilized countries are no longer in this phase. You couldn't figure this out on your own without creating the most ridiculous post I've ever seen?

+ the fact that we are running out of resources, and a large chunk of people dont have enough food to eat. But yeah, we need more and more people.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: lupi
I think she is just as ridiculous in thinking that some don't share the church views just because she doesn't. And she's probably just mad since her personal porn vid got posted and her new boyfriend is now the father to be for his previous girlfriend.

I bet she blames the church for all that...

Sounds like she would benefit from attending every once in a while..

Why, so she can learn to attack those that don't share her beliefs, like christians (err, catholics) are doing to her right now?

How inspiring...become a christian so you can learn how to sharpen your attacks on those who don't follow your beliefs!

Uh-huh. The church states their belief and the response is to denounce the institution of the church because you don't have the same belief.

I forgot, whom's attacking again?

The Church. They're attacking reason. I'll combine this with a response to an earlier post and go on to say the Bible is a really terrible basis for a moral code.