Last week, the day after Dr. George Tiller was murdered by an anti-abortion activist in the vestibule of a church, Tucker Carlson was asked the following question by a Washington Post reader:

Over the past few years, Bill O'Reilly has made the following comments about Dr. Tiller:

- He "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."
- He's guilty of "Nazi stuff,"
- a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida
- "This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union"
- "operating a death mill"
- "has blood on his hands"
- "executing babies about to be born

Tucker, I'm not saying Billo wanted some kook to kill him, but isn't this playing with fire?

To which Carlson replied:

Every one of those descriptions of Tiller is objectively true. I sincerely think it's appalling that he was murdered. But Tiller was a monster, no doubt.

This week, Carlson got asked another question on the subject of abortion:

if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion could once more be made illegal in various states, what is the appropriate punishment for providing or obtaining an abortion? Who should be charged? The abortion provider? The woman? Those pressuring the woman to obtain an abortion? Is it pre-meditated murder? Manslaughter? Generally, those questions never seem to get addressed, but is it worthwhile to ban abortions when we shrink from imposing any penalties? What is the use of such a law? Thanks.

Carlson’s response:

Good question. Let me dodge it: Laws exist not simply so we can punish those who break them, but to inform those who are considering doing so. They're moral statements, in other words. Let's start by agreeing that abortion is wrong, because it so clearly is, and then decide what we think the penalties ought to be. You can hardly do one without doing the other first.

If we wind up deciding to treat abortion like suicide -- illegal but rarely prosecuted -- that'll be a huge improvement over where we are today, when many politicians (Obama included) can't even work up the strength to condemn abortion for purposes of sex selection.

I guess it would be too much to ask that Carlson do a little soul-searching about why his first instinct is to dodge the question.

Maybe because answering it honestly and directly, especially given his loathsome response to the Tiller murder, would be just too revealing and too ugly.

No doubt if Roe V. Wade is overturned and women and physicians find themselves stuck in prison or even executed for performing, seeking, or undergoing abortions, he'll pronounce himself suitably "appalled."