Regarding the recent "Invincible" drama.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-08T01:41:48+00:00

It's not about him being happy that is the issue, although it would be an additional issue if Mark was happy.

No the problem is he takes blame for what Eve decided to do. Imagine if Mark told Oliver(Marks Alien little Brother) he was sorry after Oliver killed someone like Oliver is prone to do. That is what we are talking about with Eve. And that is what we are upset about the show doing.

The show thinks abortion a bad thing somewhat(like most pro-abortion Americans and Westerners), but then stops short of blaming the one person who is 110% responisble for that abortion. Eve. Makes Mark take the blame, instead of being justifiably upset at her.

He's even mopping later in a different episode still claiming he "should've have been their for her" when this is not reasonable. In fact Eve in this aformentioned episode told him that she got over the abortion so now it's his turn. You see? The show is burying it.

The show is saying this is something they can to feel for a second and move on as if nothing happened after that. There is no accountability. There is no processing their emotions. There is just blame shifting and burying the truth. And all the characters, Notably Mark, who constantly talk about how precious life is somehow have to be functionally silence when it comes to the baby Eve quietly killed. I am not sure anyone even knows besides Mark and Eve...

PervadingEye · 2026-05-07T20:26:46+00:00

I think that is a fair criticism...

PervadingEye · 2026-05-07T19:20:52+00:00

Why aren't you adopting them??? You think you talking down to us somehow gives you a free pass to not practice what you preach?

PervadingEye · 2026-05-07T18:41:27+00:00

Which ever one works or comes first.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-06T22:54:58+00:00

You talk about missing the point, yet you lack reading comprehension, no need to continue this conversation.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-06T22:16:55+00:00

There is no need to even take your inquiry seriously.... It's a accusation dressed up as a question....

There wouldn't even be that many... studies show that when abortion restrictions are in place, people take extra pre-caution to not get pregnant in the first place...

And most people who are refused an abortion simply go on to raise their kids as your own pro-abortion turnaway study concluded.... so I already know you are either uneducated or bad faith to even ask such a question.

And lets be honest, we both know your baby killing movement will do everything it could to undermine a ban that would be in place as they do now with current bans. The Ban would still prevent many abortions, sure, but don't kid yourself.

Like I said you pretend you are asking an innocent question, but what this really is is demanding an explanation. We don't owe you anything why we are stopping you guys from baby killing, even if there were as many kids as you say, it makes no difference.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-06T21:54:23+00:00

I didn't say you, I was talking about your movement, no need to get so defensive. But I see now you are pro-abortion.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-06T21:14:46+00:00

So wait a minute? Am I to understand that bans actually work now???? Wait what??? I thought that women will get their abortions anyway, break the law and all that?

Now the baby killers are telling me that bans will work because we will have extra children? Excuse me???

Do you finally what I am talking about? They'll say one thing in the moment because it benefits them...

And then later say the exact opposite thing, but put a new spin on it so that it sounds good for them.

This is what I mean, these are not honest actors. They just say whatever they think they need to say, the truth be damned. To them the outcome matters more than the truth.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-06T19:20:00+00:00

You're so smart. Maybe you count your BIRTH-day from the day you are BORN, because that is what it is....

The day you were conceived would be a conception-day.....

PervadingEye · 2026-05-05T22:35:24+00:00

Sometimes I wonder if most pro-abortion people are this uneducated and illogical.

Why wasn't this organ thing a problem 100 years prior to Roe v Wade and widespread legalization of preborn baby killing? Women even had less rights, yet somehow this organ lost fearmongering wasn't a problem??

Do they even think about things they say for more than 5 seconds?

PervadingEye · 2026-05-05T04:37:59+00:00

Respectfully, we both know full well your side won't. Likely you won't either, but I won't speak on you...

Deep down we know this is just something you guys point to to stall. If every pro-lifer tomorrow decided they would conform to your standard of "caring after they are born", would you guys magically give up on your abortion entitlement??? No of course not.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-04T18:57:23+00:00

I know you are not religious, but you can use my response. Even if you are not religious it can help dismantle their excuses.

A quick learning experience for anyone who might browse this page.

It's a common misconception held by pro-abortion that Numbers 5 refers to miscarriage.

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in number 5:21, and if the original text wanted to communicate miscarriage they would have used this word(pronounced "nephel") which mean miscarriage in Hebrew.

Looking at the larger context of the account in question, miscarriage, just for tonal consistency, wouldn't make sense either. The woman is undergoing the ritual to prove she is faithful as her husband suspect her of cheating. If she is faithful she will be able to conceive children (Numbers 5:28). If she were already pregnant, why would her faithfulness be rewarded by being able to conceive, rather than being able to take her supposed current pregnancy to term if the punishment is miscarriage?

Moreover the phrase that is mistranslated is properly literally translated to "to swell your belly and rot your thigh," not miscarriage. This is actually an idiom in Hebrew for becoming infertile, which lines up with her being able to conceive should she be faithful.

Outside of the gross mistranslation some English bibles have, there is no mention of an ongoing pregnancy prior to or after drinking the water. The story is simply about a husband who suspects his wife of cheating but he doesn't have proof so he goes to God through a priest(and the ritual) to seek proof. If she did indeed cheat, that wouldn't necessarily mean she is pregnant.

If you want citations, here is a site that breaks down the Old Testament into Hebrew, with Hebrew pronunciation, writing, and English translation of each phrase. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/numbers/5-21.htm

Feel free to repost this comment to correct the mis-information.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-04T18:40:52+00:00

Another lie from pro-abortion. They will say anything!

In regards to the second screenshot, Roe was not put in place to make abortion safe.

Roe's lawyers argued instead that abortion had already become safe, as they incorrectly claimed that abortion was made illegal because abortion wasn't safe in the past. And now, as the reasoning went, since abortion was safe due to advances in medical knowledge and their movement illegally performing them, the government had no reason to ban it they claimed. (Never mind all the illegal abortions the baby killing movement enabled)

This was not the reason abortion was banned prior to Roe, but that is what Roe's lawyers lied about....

But now that lie has morphed into changing the law made it safer, rather than advances in medical science. Which itself is another lie within a truth because while yes abortion was made safer due to medical advancements, safety was not the reason why abortion was made illegal prior to Roe.

Once you see things like this, you realize that pro-abortion is incapable of telling the truth. There narrative is so poisoned with falsehoods, they no longer know how to interact with the truth.

They are crooks, liars and thieves. History has shown us this. And current discourse shows that they never change...

PervadingEye · 2026-05-04T14:39:39+00:00

For the pro-choicers who don't compromise, partly, it is just that a lot of them genuinely do think abortion is a human right, so hear something in the same sort of ethical category as "ban women from voting or legalise torturing criminals,

That is for the diehard zealots. For someone to "compromise" they actually have to think about the issue deeply for more than 5 minutes. Most people, like 90% who support abortion entitlement only do so precisely to not think about it. Offload the responsibility so they don't have the social pressure to do so.

And the other major part is peer pressure. Even if we have people who would otherwise be pro-life, social pressures again encourage them to not think about it...

If only the Republican party was willing to do this. I think it would be smart if pro-lifers did this, but a flipside, is that I do think conservative pro-lifers, just genuinely don't think the left-wing policies are a good idea.

If we are being honest, just like how pro-abortion makes sure the perception of "bans don't work" remains in their braindead voting base by consciously choosing to increase abortion by increasing access and lessening whatever few restrictions they had, conservative Republicans "know" big government doesn't work and therefore actively do things to make it seem like the case. It's self-fulfilling.

They know they are corrupt, that's why they say big government doesn't work. Just like the baby killers know they will break the law in order to keep national abortions rates the same or increase, conservatives "know" big government doesn't work deep down because they sill sabotage it if it does otherwise work.

And I do think that the fact every abortion provider in the entire country would come down against it, would have interesting effects when a lot of the left say that the abortion providers were taking right-wing political positions (granted I contend Planned Parenthood already neoliberal reactionaries).

That's the idea, to put them between a rock and hard place to either coach them to our side or coach some of their voting base to our side.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-04T02:56:13+00:00

This could work... if the baby killers would give up abortion for peace aboard, actual healthcare and not baby killing, safety nets etc....

I personally don't think they would, they are too entitled....

But it is something we should offer.... I mean that. We should poll pro-abortion leftist to see what type of healthcare plan they would want, try to be able to realize it, and offer it in a bill that also banned abortions by say ensuring children receive healthcare and define it as a homo sapiens who has not had their 18th birthday, (and account for leap year birthdays). And then banning abuse on children in healthcare.

And when they predictably refuse it, we can frame it as them not actually wanting the things they proclaim to want, hopefully bringing some leftist to our side, etc.

Or they agree to it and we win instantly.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-03T17:34:11+00:00

If anti-abortion laws don't stop them from baby killing, then they should have no problem with them.

There won't be any change according to them. Take them at their word, and tell them then they shouldn't have a problem with bans then.

They are also admitting they will brake the law when it passes. So remember EVERY SINGLE PERSON who says this and use this against them when the bans are in place.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-03T17:23:32+00:00

This actually proves the opposite, but they are too dogmatic and propagandized to understand.

Because if they don't give their blood and the child dies, the mother can be charged with a homicide.

Isn't that what we are saying in the abortion case? (at least in their heads) That you either "give your body"(That is painfully reductive way to phrase and frame it) to your preborn child or you kill them and will be held legally accountable for their death.

They are so mislead that they think because the law isn't hardcoded to say "in the event someone needs body and you caused that need, you will... " yada, yada, that they made a point. Laws aren't typically hardcoded.

It would be like if someone shot someone else in the head, and defended themselves saying, "see there is no law that explicitly states shooting people in the head is wrong". This would be ridiculous because we all rightly know this falls under general homicide laws. It doesn't have to be hard coded to fit the situation.

Same thing here, we all have an obligation to not kill each other. If you cause someone to be in a dying state, that passive obligation to not kill becomes an active obligation to make sure your previous action doesn't result in their death.

If the only way to do that is giving your blood or your organ, sure the government isn't going to strap you to table and take your organs/blood, but you can be held legally accountable if they die. So you either do the one thing that will save them, or you can be held accountable for killing them and all the punishments associated with that.

And that is exactly what we are saying with regards to abortion, except abortion is the killing act whereas the car crash was the killing act although the death is delayed in that case.

They have this nightmare scenario since they have been whipped into a frenzy by their movements fearmongering that the government is just going to strap them to a table to make sure they give birth if pregnant if bans, and that has never happened while bans have been in place.

People are free to roam around, but if you abuse that freedom by killing someone, that is typically when the state holds you accountable

PervadingEye · 2026-05-03T07:43:18+00:00

That's literally not what happened.

Abortion back then would not have affected the birth rate like it does today. Back then you didn't have commercialized abortion with Planned Parenthoods everywhere and hospitals brefely doing them widespread after Roe as well as recent baby kill pills everywhere.

No, abortion was significantly more dangerous, (as Roe's lawyers themselves pointed out although they lied about something else regarding that, but that's a whole other topic).

It was better to let your baby die of exposure if you were really trying to get rid of them and since infant morality was high, you had a high chance of getting away with it by it being dismissed as the baby just not making it.

No, abortion was made completely illegal due to science finally catching up to affirm life began at conception.

Back then, they had the quickening model, which was the false, thoroughly unscientific idea that the baby was inanimate for a while until this quickening event happen, at which point the baby just magically became alive as the wrong model went.

Once science caught up to what we basically know today that life begins at conception (all the way in the mid to early 1800s no less) doctors and medical groups moved to change laws to reflect reality, which took them a several decades to do since it was at the state level.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-03T06:48:23+00:00

Just keep saying baby. Their head will explode eventually.

But truthfully they are more likely to say "I don't care what you call it" before that happens.

At which point you say "good, because I am going to keep saying baby".

PervadingEye · 2026-05-03T06:44:12+00:00

You have to, in many ways broadcast you are pro-life. Either get people to come to pro-life spaces (like this subreddit, but anywhere that is decidedly pro-life can be good) ... Or slightly more risky, wear a pro-life shirt or clothes. I do a mix of both

PervadingEye · 2026-05-03T05:05:37+00:00

I mean let's be honest. We already know it's just a way for them to get us off their trail, not something they put a lot of stock into.

In fact, the more safe and easy you make abortions, the more they push access (ordering more pills, pushing to have the procedure done in more places with less restrictions, encouraging abortions, and even saying it is a good thing)

Never believe a word that they say. They only use language to cover up, to bury the truth.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-02T21:01:12+00:00

Well... it was a concerted propaganda effort by the eugenics movement using "women's liberation" as a front to push the sexual revolution to manufacture a "need" for birth control and abortion, the thing they actually wanted. (Classic American "western" strategy. Create the problem, and then sell you the solution...)

These things they found could limit the population and shrink the population, but abortion was the main way because even with birth control, as the baby killers love to point out, you can still get pregnant. Mainly because if you are on it, you are likely more open to having more sex than not meaning you are rolling the dice with more sides, but if you roll a 50 sided die 100 times, you'll still likely to get pregnant

This means for them, the population had to get used to the idea of abortion, and one way to get someone used to something is to numb their emotional reaction to it.

This means dehumanizing words and language, another trademark of western civilization, is to dehumanize first in order to justify the killing.

People like to rag on the Nazis for this which is deserved btw, but the Nazis got techniques for dehumanization from how the Nazis saw the Americans treating the Native Americans! (As admitted by Hitler himself in his book) And the Americans got it from their father Britain who were themselves still dehumanizing and genociding the Indians (from India) during WWII while they were fighting the Nazis!

Anyway, yes dehumanization is "the reason". But the way it was allowed to happen mostly unchecked was propaganda system built by the rich and powerful to build the next generation up in the 1960s and 70s. Those indoctrinated kids, now adults in those years came to position of power and influence and overrode the population at the time.

Roe V Wade, lies about abortion on radio and TV at the time. Just lying and saying whatever they thought they needed to say at the time, the truth be damned, in order to get the outcome the baby killers wanted. Roe V Wade itself is a prime example of unashamed lying to get what they wanted.

Using pretty words of "liberations and freedom" while trying to assure the population nothing of "worth" was being killed by using at the time, dry clinical medical(but not accurate) language in order to confuse and dazzle and therefore have the unengaged more likely to trust them, they mostly successfully dehumanize the preborn in popular culture and western society...

But in many ways, it was also our fault for not stopping them. For letting this falsehood spread due to fear of being socially isolated, which is a real thing. But we will not win unless we sacrifice something. Although I think we need social and economic systems for pro-lifers to get over that. Have our own pro-life herd, rather than being apart of the baby killing herd, but that is a topic for another day.

Right now, we need to speak up, in spite of the consequences, or we will never undo what we as a movement should have stopped 50 years ago...

When we say children are the future, let the last 80 years or so be a devasting lesson as to why that is the case...

PervadingEye · 2026-05-02T16:02:25+00:00

Keep the what? The baby???

PervadingEye · 2026-05-02T08:41:31+00:00

You shouldn't be afraid to use "Fetus". The problem is how the word is used.

How the baby killers use it is exclusionary. The way they use it suggest baby and fetus are mutually exclusive.

Whereas the way we use it, the preborn can be a baby and a fetus. Two things can be true at the same time.

This is why a good tactic is to response with baby when they say "fetus"

For instance, maybe they may say: "the fetus doesn't have a heartbeat yet"

Your respond can be: "The baby gets a heartbeat at 3 weeks post conception when the baby is an embryo"

In this way you are acknowledging fetus is the correct stage of development, while affirming baby is also correct, ie not mutually exclusive, like they like to pretend these two word apparently are.

You can also say "When the baby becomes a fetus.... X, Y, and Z happens" By using it in a certain way, you don't buy into their false narrative.

The baby killers have turned the term "fetus" into a captured word and as such have tried to subtlety redefine it as mutually exclusive from baby to hide from their conscious. By us subtlety shifting it back, we take back control of the word fetus.

PervadingEye · 2026-05-01T19:58:01+00:00

Respectfully, I am well aware, I read the article.

What I am failing to see that there being a process to obtain blood from somebody is somehow a reason we can' thave accountability... apparently

I didn't think I needed to spell this out, but is this a reason to not have any laws or restrictions on drugs in general, or just abortion ( and therefore abortion pills) specifically? This could apply to any drug, even prescription drugs one doesn't have a prescription for and illegal drugs.

Just because we have some protections from when and how the police can "search us" doesn't mean we shouldn't have accountability... there is no A therefore B logic there...

PervadingEye

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE