“All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” --Judge Neil Gursuch
Fox News host Tucker Carlson took young Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell to task on Tuesday night, and it was brutal. Swalwell stupidly thought he was ready to take on Carlson and agreed to appear on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" to discuss President Donald Trump's SCOTUS pick Neil Gursuch, where the California congressman made his second mistake: bringing up abortion.
Carlson pounced on the opportunity to expose the left's fatally flawed take on abortion.
"Gursuch wrote in a book about ethics, 'All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.' Do you believe that?" asked Carlson.
This question couldn't be more basic. Is it always wrong for a private person to take a human life, say for a reason of convenience, or is that somehow justified when we talk about abortion?
Swalwell was petrified. Answering yes not only blows up his abortion argument, but it would send up the Batsignal to the abortion lobby to hang him with a noose. His career would be over as fast as Martin O'Malley can say "all lives matter." And if he answers no, well then, Swalwell is not only immoral, he singlehandedly exposes the abortion argument for what it is: a mandate of death for the unwanted.
Instead of perhaps taking a more nuanced approach, or adding some spin to steer the question away from abortion, Swalwell pathetically evades the question altogether. This too hurt the abortion argument, not to mention made the Democrat look like a typical, sleazy politician.
Watch the glorious moment below:
Carlson is currently enjoying sky-high ratings, even eclipsing those of former Fox News star and trusted journalist Megyn Kelly. It's not a mystery to see why Carlson is so successful.
Partial transcript provided via National Review:
Carlson: He (Gorsuch) wrote in a book about ethics, “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Do you believe that?
Swalwell: All human beings are intrinsically valuable. However, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a right to make a decision about her own healthcare.
Carlson: I’m not asking you about Roe v Wade. I’m asking you to assess what he said here…as a general statement. ”All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” you agree with that. The second part is, “The taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” do you agree with that or not?
Swalwell: The most personal decision a person can make is a woman with her a doctor about her own body and a person who is terminally ill about whether they want to die in peace and he [Gorsuch] has chosen that the government should intervene.
Carlson: Will you answer my question? “The intentional taking of of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Now if you can’t agree on that…
Swalwell: The Constitution says…”
Carlson: I’m not talking about the Constitution. What do you think…I’m not talking about women’s rights. “The intentional taking of human life by private persons.” That’s what he said, and I want to know whether you agree with that statement or not.
Swalwell: What he has shown in his legal career…
Carlson: (Laughs) Are you really afraid to say that the intentional taking of life is wrong?
Swalwell: No, of course not. I was a prosecutor and I prosecuted people for intentionally taking life.
Carlson: But you won’t agree with this because you are afraid of the abortion lobby, like “Woo, you are anti-abortion if you are against the taking of human life.” I mean, come on!
Swalwell: A woman has the right to make her own decision about her own healthcare.
Carlson: Do you think it is the taking of human life? Abortion?
Swalwell: I think that right now…before viability, a woman should be able to make her own decision. After viability, in the case of her own psychological health, in the case of rape or incest, she should also be able to make that decision.
Carlson: Okay, but is it the taking of human life?
Swalwell: That is a woman’s personal decision.
Carlson: But is it? I’m not asking about the decision, I mean is it human life or not. What do you think?
Swalwell: She is terminating something she does not want and that’s her own choice.
Carlson: Okay, but do you think it is human life?
Swalwell: I think at viability it may be, you know, but it should be decided by the woman. She is the one who has to have it.
Carlson: You brought it up. Do you think before viability it is human life or something else?
Swalwell: I think if it is not viable yet Tucker, the courts have decided…
Carlson: You aren’t going to answer my question now or ever, I think. But you should because it’s a basic question.