(I'm paraphrasing here, but...)
On "Meet the Press" just now, E.J. Dionne said that each major political party kind of forces its candidates to become liars on the abortion issue. Neither side, Dionne said, puts its politicians in a position of being able to say, "You know, I do have ethical concerns about this possibly being the taking of a human life, but I am also unwilling to see abortion made illegal, with all that that would mean for women - especially in the first trimester."
Carlson's response was, "No, I think the pro-choice side can't allow for an argument that's that nuanced, because the pro-choice side can't allow that there might be a valid point to the argument that a human life is at stake."
Well, Tucker, what you left out is that neither can the right take a nuanced position that allows that there is a genuine ethical problem with utterly discounting women's right to autonomy. Once you, Tucker, admit that there are problems with your argument, you face questions about what it really means to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy (what am I, an autonomous human being or an incubator?); how much prison time are you willing to impose for a woman who illegally seeks an abortion; how many women dead from coat hanger abortions (WARNING: GRAPHIC) is an acceptable price to pay to ensure that all unwilling incubators carry their "unborn" to term?
That, Mr. Carlson, is a conversation in which your side can not afford to engage either.