Print reports ignore tension between McCain's assertion that human rights begin at conception and support for stem cell research
SUMMARY: The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all reported Sen. John McCain's assertion at a forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren that he believes "a baby [is] entitled to human rights" "[a]t the moment of conception." But none of the articles raised the question of how McCain reconciles this statement with his support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and certain exceptions to a ban on abortion.
In articles following August 16 appearances by Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain at a forum at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, numerous print media outlets, including the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and three separate articles in The Washington Post, reported McCain's assertion at the forum that he believes "a baby [is] entitled to human rights" "[a]t the moment of conception." But in none of the articles did the reporters raise the question of how McCain reconciles his position that human rights begin at conception with his support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and support of exemptions for cases of rape or incest in a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Nor did they point out that McCain did not note whether his position that "a baby [is] entitled to human rights" "[a]t the moment of conception" means that he would support making illegal in vitro fertilization in which not all embryos are then implanted, intrauterine devices (IUDs), the morning-after pill, or the birth control pill.
By contrast, in an August 17 Time.com article, Nancy Gibbs wrote of McCain's statement at Saddleback Church:
Consider the obvious implications if rights attain the moment the egg and sperm meet: all kinds of embryo research become questionable, starting with the stem-cell research McCain says he favors. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the rights of those that are discarded or frozen. Some forms of contraception, such as IUDs and the morning-after pill, would presumably be illegal if they affect the ability of an egg to implant. Abortion opponents contend that the birth control pill itself, while designed to prevent ovulation so no egg is fertilized in the first place, may also have the effect of blocking implantation of any egg that sneaks through. Suddenly, a whole range of reproductive choices comes into question.
Similarly, in an August 18 USA Today article, Cathy Lynn Grossman reported that R. Alta Charo, the Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, "said McCain's view on conception was inconsistent with his support of embryonic stem cell research," and quoted her assertion: "If he believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research."
During the August 16 forum, McCain had the following exchange with Warren:
WARREN: Let's deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all the decisions on all of that; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, would say that's a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?
McCAIN: At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record, in the Congress, in the Senate; and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment -- that's my commitment to you.
Moments later, McCain stated that he has "come down on the side of stem cell research":
WARREN: Another issue, stem cells. We've had the scientific breakthrough of creating pluripotent stem cells through adult stem cells.
McCAIN: Yes.
WARREN: So would you favor or oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research since we had this other breakthrough?
McCAIN: For those of us in the pro-life community this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma because we're also taught other obligations that we have as well. I've come down on the side of stem cell research. But I am wildly optimistic that skin cell research, which is coming more and more into focus and practicability, will make this debate an academic one.
Indeed, McCain voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would "Amend[] the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo." The legislation passed both houses of Congress but was vetoed by President Bush.
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the November 19, 2006, edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos said to McCain: "You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion with some exceptions for life and rape and incest." McCain replied: "Rape, incest, and the life of the mother, yes."
The following articles quoted McCain's statement that human rights begin "at the moment of conception" without noting his stated support for embryonic stem-cell research or the right of a woman to obtain an abortion in cases of rape or incest:
- An August 17 New
York Times article, in which
Katharine Q. Seelye and John Broder reported: "Mr. Obama skirted a question about when life begins,
saying that determining such a thing was above his pay grade and sending
murmurs throughout the audience. Mr. McCain said simply, 'At the
moment of conception.' "
- An August 17 Washington Post article, in which staff writers Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr. reported: "In his interview with Warren, McCain received loud applause from the crowd of more than 2,000 when he declared his view that unborn children deserve rights 'at the moment of conception,' and offered one of the most emphatic declarations of his opposition to abortion in his presidential campaign."
- An August 17 Associated Press article in which Charles Babington and Beth Fouhy reported: "Presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain differed sharply on abortion Saturday, with McCain saying a baby's human rights begin 'at conception,' while Obama restated his support for legalized abortion."
- An August 18 Wall Street Journal article, in which Laura Meckler wrote: "The contrast between the two men may have been sharpest on abortion. Mr. Warren asked at what point a 'baby' is 'entitled to human rights.' Sen. McCain gave the answer most in the crowd wanted to hear: 'At the moment of conception.' "
- An August 20 Washington Post article, in which staff writers Perry Bacon Jr. and Michael Shear wrote: "Over the weekend, McCain emerged from a forum at the Saddleback evangelical church with high praise from conservatives for his answer to the question about when life begins. He said simply, 'At conception.' "
- An August 20 Washington Post article, in which staff writer Jonathan Weisman reported: "At Saddleback, McCain won plaudits from conservatives when he said that life begins 'at the moment of conception,' especially after Obama deflected the question."
At this point, McCain is just throwing out applause lines that Rick Davis feeds him.
And all this time i though it was a sign of Alzheimer's.......
It's sad that you so freely throw around idiotic racial stereotypes.
It's also sad that your entire knowledge of Black culture comes from reruns of Good Times.
That might explain why McCain is taking a hands off approach to developing the GOP platform this year. He's just gonna let the GOP tell him what he's supposed to believe in.
I thought I'd toss this in for fun:
When asked about the RNC lineup, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis said:
Yup, real diverse crowd of white men he's got lined up.
And truth is the first casualty in a Republican campaign.
Truth can't survive anywhere NEAR a Republican campaign....
In my humble opinion......
Life begins when a fetus can survive, with zero help from medicine or medical procedures to keep its potential for life posible... with only the natural order of human life cycles doing their thing.
A single cell at the moment of conception... IS NOT LIFE!!
If we allow this to be, then rest assured women will lose their rights to control their body at all...... and then what about men like me who have had the big V word done? I've had my kids, I'm done! But the way the religious seem to think it... my wife should be continously pregnant by me all the time and she had little say in the matter....
When will the idiocy stop?
I probably disagree with you on every point but it doesn't really help to be a jerk about typos; I knew what you meant.
Dex,
I find it funny that you would think that since I said "with only the natural order of human life cycles doing their thing." Meaning with the help of mom and dad once born (which would be part of the natural cycle of life)..... I guess I could have written more clearly, but since I suspected that everyone in here would have figured that out, I guess was wrong.
I also was clear about the need of the fetus needing medical help that would be beyond the technology we have today as well. A fetus that is less than four months in the womb has a zero percent chance of survival outside of it..... all the medical help in the world would do no good.
Capt, babies brought to full term and then born cannot survive on their own. Premies definitely cannot. Are they not alive? According to your definition we're not really humans until we're about, say 5 or 6?
UK posted this the other day and it is the best response to the "life begins" drama that some conservatives engage in.
You DON'T have a CONCEPTION DAY!, you have a BIRTHDAY!
Pearlene, I saw that post by UK too, pretty to-the-point. It reminded me of a Bible-thumping co-worker who was arguing with the little league about the age cut-off for his kid. His birthday was on the wrong side of the date, so he was being put into the higher league, Dad was trying to get the date "adjusted" by a week or so, so his boy would be the right age to play in the younger league.
I reminded him to add about 9 months to the kids age if he was going to be honest and consistent.
I won't go that far, but life clearly CANNOT begin at concepcion, as the POTENTIAL FOR LIFE does not even begin there. Until implantation in the uterine wall, the chance of that small cluster of undifferentiated cells ever becoming anything other than a small cluster of undifferentiated cells is ZERO. W/O implantation it CAN'T BECOME A HUMAN. PERIOD.
So there's no ethical dilema AT ALL with stem cell reserach. (There's no requirement now that spare fetuses are kept forever anyway! Why do you con's prefer that we just throw them away?! It's utterly sensless!)
But AFTER implantation... from that point on the gray area starts. So ABORTION is an entirely different issue. (Contaception however is not, and to oppose that is also utterly senseless.) Personally I think the only reason that 90% of pro choicers won't support laws against 3rd trimester abortions and dilation-and-extraction (partial-birth) is that they know the pro-lifers won't stop there. IOW the irrationality on the left is a direct result of the irrationality on the right. If we could agree that core abortion rights are sacrosant, we could do a better job eliminating the basically obvious things that we'd pretty much all agree on. (I'm sorry, partial brith aboprtion is infanticide there's no two ways to look at it!)
And while I'm not a doctor, I can't imagine ANY medical scenario where waiting until LATERin a pregnancy and delivering VAGINALLY would HELP things. Every complication I've ever read about or heard of suggests that (1) the longer the pregnancy goes the chance of complications INCREASES and (2) that most complications would PROHIBIT, rather than REQUIRE a vaginal birth. So if you've gone that far and can deliver vaginally, at that point there is no medical reason not to deliver. IF I'M WRONG, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHY THIS WOULD BE MEDICALLY NECESSARY, BUT PLEASE ONLY DO SO IF YOU'RE A DOCTOR OR KNOW WHAT THE H#LL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
That being said I do support legalized abortions, but only in the first trimester, and the earlier the better. I know it's a tough decision, but it's just not one we can let you take your time on. Life DOES begin at some point, and it's a LOT sooner than pro-choicer's realize (just look at an unltr-sound!) but it's definitely NOT at concep. like the pro-lifers instist. That's just silly. But the clock IS ticking!
We need to find common ground, do what we can all agree on (with regards to the law), and then STOP.
I think that as soon as a sperm hits an egg, it's a human being.
(pssst.... sane people.. just play along or this troll bait topic will explode into another hyperemotional mess of religious wackos and their incoherent posts)
No sense bringing up any uncomfortable stuff like this for Grampah...
He's with the Pope. He's on the side of God. Tough questions are only allowed for Democrats.
Just let him keep running his filthy, lyin', smearin' campaign. The American people will once again probably be too stupid to see through it.
Obama's FULL brother
???????????????????????????
I bet bill agrees!
Filed In:
No RTW, they don't see it,
The bulk of American people are a disaffected, distracted band of halfwits, who take growing pride in their ignorance and stupidity.
One of the great victories of conservatism has been to dumb down the people and harness the dumb-asses via media consolidation. This is a critical part of their holding on to power.
Got that right. And here's the quote that proves it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/19/235922/632/746/570818
I LOVE IT!!!
If you haven't checked out this link, do so and, pass it on!
sounds like you are describing rap "music". When Jay Leno went on the streets and asked everyday people simple questions, I initially thought it was a comedy routine until I figured out it was for real. I still believe he only targeted Government employees or evangelicals
ummm, I don't know if the other posters have pointed this out yet, but McCaine stated that he believes life begins at "conception." He did not stated that he believed life starts at "fertilization." I don't think this linguistic nuance is meaningless: fertilization refers to the union of the sperm and ova, whereas conception refer to a number of points in the reproductive process--but most commonly refers to implantation of the blastocyst (i.e., the cluster of cells after multiple divisions of the fertilized cell) in the womb, rather than fertlization.
Now, why does this matter? Well, Media Matters, you listed four medical methods or treatments: in vitro fertilization; intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, or the birth control pill. All four of these methods operate on the fertilized cell prior to implantation; none of them affect a zygote that has reached the commonly understood phase of conception. Thus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to take McCaine's statement that he believes, morally, that life begins at "conception," extrapolate that he actually means fertilization (the non-standard definition for conception), insinuate that he must, or very likely, belives that in vitro fertilization; intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and the birth control pill should be made illegal, and then ask, innocently, why the press did not pose these questions?
Well, I think that it's because the logic is a bit faulty (one plus one does not equal four; you need two more to get there). By posting this on your website as a "correction" of the conservative media, you are engaging in the tactics your foundation was established to address. Shame on you.
That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure if it applies to McCain's views or not. This is a scientific distinction that most laymen probably don't consider. Have you ever heard someone ask if you believed that life began at fertilization, at conception, or at birth? Probably not. In layman's terms, the first two are the same, because the thrust of the question is whether you believe potential life is the same as actual life, and the distinction doesn't have a hell of a lot of relevance there.
If McCain wants to say that a fertilized egg isn't human but a blastocyst is, or that the former doesn't have a soul but the latter does, then he can do that. I'd still have to wonder exactly how he came to that conclusion, and I think it would come off as disingenuous.
Conception: fertilzation of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatazoon.
Stedman's Medical Dictionary 1990 ed.
Trying to break through some of the nonesense of these posts ... Media Matters did a GREAT JOB putting together this argument. I am very much hoping for the MSM to comment on this. Of course, they will either ignore it or say that McCain is just sharpening his message!
Thank you Media Matters for bringing sense and journalism back to the free world!!
Evangelicals and other cultic loonies are all quantity and no quality.
Until the baby can survive on its own, then it is a part of its mother. There are many reasons why the mother might decide to abort a baby including her own survival. But, ITS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
The reasonable restraints are in place and since no one actually WANTS more abortions, everyone should shut up about it.
I don't think the point is without merit. Reproduction is a very complicated process--just because you've got the potential to create life does not mean that, left alone, nature will take its course and create a baby. For example, spontaneous miscarriages are rather common in the early phases of pregnancy. It's hard to say when life begins: is it when a child is born? the first trimester? when the nervous system develops? when it is implanted in the uterus? when the egg is fertilized? is sperm a child? (I do not throw sperm in to be provocative; that is the position of the Catholic church) I don't think science can give us the answer because reproduction exists on a continuum, and thus our personal defintions of when life begins are informed by our spiritual, religious, ethical or moral beliefs:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. These considerations begin our analysis of the woman's interest in terminating her pregnancy, but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise." Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
I think that peoples' beliefs about what reproductive medical methods are appropriate may exist on a continuum, based in part on a personal definition of when life begins, or, alternatively, how one balances the competing concerns of a woman's right to choose. Assuming, for a moment, that McCaine is not a complete pandering hack, but has instead based his policies (and voting history), on what he believes to be ethically correct--then, do we require that he take every belief he holds to its logical conclusion? Not everyone is an extremist. Most people prefer the grey.
Perhaps McCaine has decided that abortion is wrong because he thinks that life begins at conception, but has concluded that, in the balance, the psychological harm of requiring a woman whose pregnancy was the product of rape or incest to carry her pregnancy to term outweighs the value of the life growing inside her? Maybe he's just using the "life begins at conception" as a buzz-phrase to tell evangalicals, "don't worry, i'm one of you." I have no idea.
This is what I do know, however. Media Matter's piece was not concerned with correcting an error in the news. It was concerned that the piece it wanted to write, critizing McCaine on policy grounds, was not written by the various outlets it cites. That's not monitoring the news; it's dictating the angle and content of the news coverage for this event. I think that's an improper position, given the stated purpose of this organization. It's a fine piece for a journalist to write, but hypocritical when produced by an organization to "monitor" the news and "correct" conservative inaccuracies.