Posted on 02/01/2017 6:59:57 PM PST by markomalley
In Tuesday night's episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the Fox News host sparred with U.S. Democratic representative Eric Swalwell of California over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
"I just want to know if you agree with this or not — and I'm quoting him directly," Carlson began, reading aloud words written by the 10th Circuit judge in his book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. "'Human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.'"
Turning to Swalwell, Carlson asked, "Do you believe that?"
Agreeing that human beings have intrinsic value, Swalwell added, "However, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a right to make a decision about her own healthcare —"
Interrupting, Carlson said, "Ok, but I'm not asking you about Roe v. Wade. I'm asking you to assess what he has said here, not about Roe v. Wade."
Carlson quoted Gorsuch again and asked whether Swalwell agreed that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. Instead of answering directly, the California lawmaker said that "two of the most personal decisions" someone can make involve abortion and assisted suicide.
"Are you going to answer my question?" Carlson asked, trying a third, fourth and fifth time unsuccessfully to get a simple yes or no to his query. Finally, after laughing in incredulity, he asked "Are you really afraid of saying the intentional taking of life is wrong?"
Carlson also challenged him to answer whether abortion is "the taking of human life."
"She's terminating something that she does not want, and that's her choice," Swalwell responded.
"OK, but do you think it's human life?"
"I think at viability, a baby should be decided by the woman," the congressman answered. "She's the one who has to have it."
"You brought it up," Carlson said. "That's why I'm pressing you. But do you think before viability it's a human life or something else?"
"I think it's not viable yet, Tucker."
The back and forth continued until Carlson gave up: "You're not going to answer my question, now or ever, I suspect."
Swalwell's official website offers the typical talking points of liberal congressmen, promising to uphold marriage "equality" and "reproductive rights." A member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus since 2013, Swalwell works to advance abortion access in California.
"I am a strong supporter of women's rights and the ability of women to make their own healthcare decisions, and I am proud to join the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus," Swalwell said in 2013. "[Women] must be provided access to a full panoply of health care options, including contraceptive and reproductive services."
Swalwell is also a strong proponent of gay "marriage."
"Love is love and I'm thrilled the Supreme Court overturned the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and returned marriage equality to California in 2013," states Swalwell on his official website.
Swalwell also supports Obamacare, particularly its contraceptive mandate forcing religious employers to participate in regimes that cover contraception for employees.
These slimy bastards know the answers to those questions. They just can’t bring themselves to admit that they’re religiously dedicated to the bloody slaughter of innocent human beings.
Tucker is very good at nailing these liberals. We may reach a point where liberals won’t want to go on his show......
I doubt it - Leftists are so convinced of their own superiority that they're sure they can beat him in an argument. While they may be wrong, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.
Has the Congressman submitted Legislation to protect a “viable” Fetus, even restricting Abortion in the Third Trimester?
If not, why not? He obviously sees a difference.
“They just can’t bring themselves to admit that they’re religiously dedicated to the bloody slaughter of innocent human beings.”
Change the narrative. ARE YOU PRO ABORTION?
Liberals reject biology, a science.
Tucker needs to be a little more tricky.
Those dems know that if they answer the first question, that there will be a follow-up “gotcha” question. So, they will never answer the first question for fear of the second one, which will expose their hypocrisy and real agenda.
Tucker asks good questions and allows guests to answer without interrupting. This ‘Columbo “ style of approach leaves liberals quaking.
And he doesn't talk over or shout over his guests. He doesn't need to, they do!
Reporter: “With your devotion to the words of the Koran, do you believe that taking human life is wrong.”
Member of ISIS: “Are you talking about our practice of beheading?”
Reporter: “Precisely.”
Member of ISIS: “Yes, if the Koran says it is O.K.”
Reporter: “But do you say that the taking of human life is wrong?”
Member of ISIS: “In all that I do, I do because Muhammad tells me to do. I do not question the words of Muhammad.”
Reporter: “But! But! Nooooooooooo!”
Member of ISIS: “Allahu Akbar!”
from the article:
“Swalwell’s official website offers the typical talking points of liberal congressmen, promising to uphold marriage “equality” and “reproductive rights.” “
I’m really sick of these abortion advocates using the term “reproductive rights” - in modern times, no one in the US has ever tried to interfere with the right of anyone to reproduce. What abortion advocates defend are ‘non-reproductive rights’ - the supposed right to destroy the product of an already successful reproductive event.
And don’t even get me started on the supposed “equality” of supposed “marriages” that can’t even be consummated in the normal sense of the word.
Self defense if it falls under this would be an exception.
They only reject science or accept it if the people who will vote them into office feel the same way.sadly...so many american are brainwashed by media propagandists and dont know what the biological definition of life is. Or if they do they dont or cant defend it appropriately
Had to turn the channel...started leaking IQ points after listening to that ding-dong.
Question for him: viable at six months (yes?)? Five months (yes?)? Four months (yes?)? Three months / 90 days (yes?)? 89 days? (No?????)
Being just a wee bit gauche, Does not a woman make her choice when she first spreads her legs?
The question should be considered a trick question.
Human life is intrinsically valuable, full stop.
However, the taking of life is not always wrong, because the case of self-defense exists.
In addition, whether the taking of life is right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with it being done by “private persons”.
Taking life is no more moral when done by a government than by an individual. The intrinsic value of human life does not have a government variable in its equation.
Correction—the taking of innocent life is always wrong.
The unnecessary taking of even a guilty person’s life is also wrong. The inherent value of human life is not dependent on whether or not the person has committed a crime. The only time it is justified to take a human life is when it is absolutely necessary to protect another human life.
Stalinists lie. ALWAYS
And Rat Sanger didn’t CARE about choice, she wanted ALL babies dead for 10 years in the West following WWII.
Search for Pathe’s 1940s newsreel clip “No More Babies”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.