This is what I notice about the right wing in the USA. There political arguments have taken a queue from creationism in that they only pick select data points and ignore the rest, and then lie about the conclusions.
Yes, and they both took their cue from Himmler. Indoctrination uses the same techniques whether one is pushing a political or a religious agenda, or even just trying to sell something that won't sell using just facts, like cigarettes. Unlike education, which intends to teach using facts, indoctrination intends to persuade using any language that is considered effective. There is no interest in truth in this process apart from trying to project an air of truthiness through specious argumentation. The agenda, values, and methods of each are the same. You would never expect to hear anybody generating indoctrination material to say, "Well, that's just dishonest. We can't say that." Instead, one might hear, "That's an obvious lie easily fact-checked. We'd better not use it." Luther says it well here:
- "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
The Republicans and their indoctrination media outlets share those values, and their target audience will serve as vectors for the disinformation whether wittingly or not. And you are correct. We see that more here on RF among creationists than conservative apologists, but the media are rife with that kind of propaganda.
Why should the lives of pre-born infants be excluded.?
That's a judgment call that depends on one's moral intuitions, the age of the conceptus, and understanding of science. I have no problem with a presentient fetus being aborted compared to my strenuous objection to the church imposing its will using the power of the state on people that don't share its beliefs.
If one can't get past the images that have been implanted by church indoctrination in the minds of many of its adherents - images of babies screaming in horror as they are being murdered in the womb to harvest and profiteer from their parts and fluids - he will forever be equating aborting fetuses with killing children.
Your use of language is particularly tendentious. Imagine somebody advocating for infanticide up to one year after birth and referring to infants as post-birth fetuses.
I don’t know what my religious beliefs or any religious beliefs have to with it. It just seems like there should be laws against brutally dismembering a baby and ripping it out of its mother’s womb.
Your religious exposure is evident in that comment. Instead of saying that there should be laws against abortion, you choose to write, "there should be laws against brutally dismembering a baby and ripping it out of its mother’s womb."
Also, notice who it is that is objecting to abortion. Not the humanists. Not the Wiccans and pagans. Not the Hindus and Buddhists. It's principally Christians in America. Why? Because those are the people going to church. Those not exposed to these sermons don't experience the outrage. That's how one can tell that the outrage is manufactured through indoctrination - its concentration in a target demographic. Natural outrage cuts across all demographics. Look at the world's reaction to Putin in Ukraine. That's natural outrage. Nobody had to hear a sermon or speech to be outraged. Contrast that with the reaction of the Russian people, many of whom support Putin. That's concentrated in susceptible Russians, and that's how you know that it is the result of their indoctrination.
