"The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support"
About this Quote
The sentence draws a bright moral line by denying that killing can ever be framed as a legitimate right. It appeals to the intuition that rights protect life rather than authorize its destruction, and it reframes contested issues by choosing the description that carries the greatest moral weight: killing a person. By centering the right to life as foundational, the statement implies that any claim to a competing right collapses when it entails the deliberate taking of human life.
Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and former congressman known for hardline positions and a 2008 presidential run, often ties policy to uncompromising moral premises. Here he aligns with a broader pro-life and socially conservative tradition that treats human life as intrinsically inviolable from conception to natural death. The phrasing echoes debates over abortion and physician-assisted suicide, where supporters speak in terms of autonomy and choice and opponents translate those claims into a right to kill. Rhetorically, it shifts the moral burden: rather than justifying restrictions, he demands that defenders of permissive policies justify the existence of a right to take life.
Yet the assertion also brushes against the messy edges of law and ethics. Societies do recognize limited permissions for lethal force: self-defense, just war, and, in some jurisdictions, capital punishment. Tancredo’s sentence operates as a moral thesis rather than a comprehensive legal doctrine, asserting a presumption that any right stopping short of protecting life is suspect. Critics would press on consistency, asking how this stance coexists with support for the death penalty or military intervention; supporters would answer that those are not rights but regrettable duties imposed by justice or necessity.
The power of the line lies in its simplicity. By denying the moral category of a right to kill, it stakes a claim about what rights are for: safeguarding the conditions of human dignity, not licensing exceptions to it. It invites every policy argument back to first principles.
Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and former congressman known for hardline positions and a 2008 presidential run, often ties policy to uncompromising moral premises. Here he aligns with a broader pro-life and socially conservative tradition that treats human life as intrinsically inviolable from conception to natural death. The phrasing echoes debates over abortion and physician-assisted suicide, where supporters speak in terms of autonomy and choice and opponents translate those claims into a right to kill. Rhetorically, it shifts the moral burden: rather than justifying restrictions, he demands that defenders of permissive policies justify the existence of a right to take life.
Yet the assertion also brushes against the messy edges of law and ethics. Societies do recognize limited permissions for lethal force: self-defense, just war, and, in some jurisdictions, capital punishment. Tancredo’s sentence operates as a moral thesis rather than a comprehensive legal doctrine, asserting a presumption that any right stopping short of protecting life is suspect. Critics would press on consistency, asking how this stance coexists with support for the death penalty or military intervention; supporters would answer that those are not rights but regrettable duties imposed by justice or necessity.
The power of the line lies in its simplicity. By denying the moral category of a right to kill, it stakes a claim about what rights are for: safeguarding the conditions of human dignity, not licensing exceptions to it. It invites every policy argument back to first principles.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Tom
Add to List
