Pro-Abortionist, Congressman Eric Swalwell, Fails to Answer the Question on the Value of Human Life.

Screen Shot 2017-02-03 at 12.51.12 AM.png

Congressman Eric Swalwell (left) and TV host Tucker Carlson in dialogue,

I agree with Judge Neil Gursuch who said that “all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong” (1). Abortion is no exception as it is the intentional taking of a human life. This was the topic of discussion between Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell. Carlson has made his view on abortion quite clear elsewhere saying that “I’m utterly opposed to abortion, which I think is horrible and cruel” (2). However, in their discussion Swalwell deliberately avoids answering Carlson’s basic question, “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?” (3). The dialogue goes as follows [see the exchange from 01:45-3:40]:

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.

Why does Swalwell skirt around the question? Well, according to writer Prestigiacomo “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” (4).

This really gets at the core of the abortion debate, for instance, is the unborn baby human or not, and if not human, at what point does he become human? According to commentator Katrina Trinko of The Daily Signal it is “irrelevant what the courts think about when life becomes human. It’s irrelevant what abortion activists think about when life becomes human. What is relevant is science – which tells us that an unborn child has her own unique DNA at the moment of conception.” But, continues Trinko, “if Swalwell doesn’t think unborn babies are human, he should say that (and be ready to explain why having your own unique DNA and being able to grow into an adult human aren’t signs of being human). But if he does think that unborn babies are human or are human at the time they are viable, he should realize it’s time to demand justice for those babies and their right to life, no matter how tragic the circumstances in which their lives began” (5). But this is hardly the first time that there’s been obvious question dodging on the part of pro-abortionists. In 2015 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was also asked a similar set of questions that she refused to answer (6):

CNS News: “In reference to funding for Planned Parenthood: Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?

Pelosi: “Why don’t you take your ideological questions—I don’t, I don’t have-

CNS News: “If it’s not a human being, what species is it?

Pelosi: “No, listen, I want to say something to you. I don’t know who you are and you’re welcome to be here, freedom of this press. I am a devout practicing Catholic, a mother of five children. When my baby was born, my fifth child, my oldest child was six years old. I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect.

CNS News: “So it’s not a human being, then?

Pelosi: “And I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is that we do here.

References.

1. Prestigiacomo, A. 2017. Watch Tucker Carlson DESTROY Abortion Argument With Just One Question. Available.

2. Carlson, T. 2004. Republican Convention: Tucker Carlson. Available.

3. Smith, W. 2017. Eric Swalwell’s Mealy-Mouthing on Value of Human Life. Available.

4. Prestigiacomo, A. 2017. Ibid.

5. Trinko, K. 2017. The Question the Left Won’t Answer on Abortion. Available.

6. Norman, S. 2015. Is An Unborn Baby With a Human Heart a Human Being? Pelosi: ‘I Do Not Intend to Respond.’ Available.

Advertisements

One response to “Pro-Abortionist, Congressman Eric Swalwell, Fails to Answer the Question on the Value of Human Life.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s