Strict consistency in politicians is a rare quality, as the media is fond of reminding us – and them. So it was odd that major newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal failed to note the odd position of presidential candidate Senator John McCain about the beginning of human life. In the Saddleback debate organised by evangelical pastor Rick Warren recently he stated unequivocally that he believes "a baby [is] entitled to human rights" "[a]t the moment of conception".

But how does this square with his strong support of human embryonic stem cell research? And would he try to stop in vitro fertilisation, abortifacient birth control, or the morning-after pill? Not very well, as bioethicist R. Alta Charo noted in USA Today: "If he believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research."

The issue was raised, indirectly, by Rick Warren, who pressed McCain for his views on stem cell research. He responded that while he supported embryo research, he felt that the recent development of reprogrammed stem cells (induced pluripotent stem cells) would make the older technology unnecessary. “For those of us in the pro-life community this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma... 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.”

McCain's opponent, Senator Barack Obama, is a strong supporter of human embyronic stem cell research. ~ Media Matters, Aug 20