'Threats of Rape and Strangling' Force D.C. McAllister Into Hiding After Anti-Abortion Tweet


I know abusers are very good at choosing and hooking their victims, but I also think that they will show red flags that can be recognized before you get to the point of no return (or at least seeming no return). Most women do manage to get away eventually but you are right that if they are in deep enough when they recognize the need to they may need to play along until they get the right opportunity.


Some woman never recognize that they are being abused.
If you were abused as a child, many times you will think of abusive behavior to be “normal” or that is what you deserve.

I agree that the woman does not deserve threats of violence against her and her family, but she could have chosen her words much better.


“Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude,”

And the rest of 1 Cor 13.

Of course people should not be rude in response to these rude words, but, loving words would have been advisable for the tweet.


the culture of death exhibiting their usual TOLERANCE for DIVERSITY of opinion :frowning:


Because they say, “My body, my choice.” not, “her body, my choice.”?


No. But the most rapid pro-choicers tend to be.


That’s not what she said.


I read what she said and I would never interpret it as her thinking that all women are like, considering she is a woman, so she knows at least one woman who isn’t like this.

She speaks truth. Gone are the days when prochoicers insist on wanting abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” It is there sacriment. And feminism having the freedom to achieve what men can to having the freedom to be as big of a pig as men can be.


Speaks the truth on what? I don’t know what you think she’s saying.


Read the rest of my post then.


But name-calling is fine. Got it.


She didn’t talk about men or feminism in her tweet. She specifically said “women.”


I was just putting it in the context of what is going on these days. Looking at the big picture, it rings true.


Your interpretation of what she said is not what she actually said.


But aside from that it is a good point.


Did she elaborate on what she said later on? We can argue all day on what she meant by what she said.


You’re arguing about what she meant. I’m criticizing what she said.


You are arguing that she was generalizing all woman. And I argued I doubt she is. Heck, I don’t even doubt. It is painfully obvious that she isn’t because then she would be calling herself a sex maniac as well.


She said “women” and didn’t precede it with any qualifiers.

It’s not my fault she said something that didn’t make sense.


Do you take everything you read at face value?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.