How can an evangelical Christian be against stem cell research, but for organ transplants?

Question

Let's for a second do something that is almost never done.......let's take the anti-stem cell argument to it's most extreme point.
Christians don't favor the research because every living piece of tissue is part of a being with a soul. Thus advances in that area would interfere with God's work, which is considered perfect.
But they don't see anything wrong with organ transplants, which use a piece of a human being with a soul to save anothers life.
I know that this is an extreme argument, but I believe one with merit. If you are against stem cell research, you should also naturally be anti-transplant, but I bet you aren't.
One more thing just occured to me: I've heard christians say that they would never choose to benefit from stem-cell research, because it sometimes involves murdered babies. But if your little one needed a heart or kidney transplant, and the only donor was a kid accidentally shot in a drive by, you would see no problem accepting the organ. What's the difference?

Answer 1

It is no surprise that Christians are against stem-cell research. Historically, Christians have been against alternative Christians, women folkhealers, theories that claim the earth is round and/or rotates around the sun, the abolition of slavery, and both science and social progress in general. They have supported the Crusades, the Inquisition, the extermination of native peoples around the world, hate crimes against gays and other folks they don't like, and book burning.

There is no actual difference between organ transplants and stem cell research. It is merely another belief in their ever more anachronistic and delusional belief system.

Answer 2

First off, thank you for the civil tone of your question.

The thing is, I have never heard any Christian suggest that the soul is evenly distributed throughout the body, in such a way that transplanting a kidney would transfer part of one's soul to another. Feel free to cite any Christian documentation of that position, which is just mystifying to me. Of course, that is not the Catholic position, so I reserve the right to be unmoved even after you do cite something.

For you second hypothetical, the key phrase is 'accidentally shot'. So, no, in that case I would not see a problem accepting the organ. A more accurate metaphor for embryonic stem cell research would be someone going out and shooting a kid specifically so the kid's organ would be available for transplant. Harvesting organs is not the objective in accidental shootings; or even in intentional drive-by shootings. In those cases, the organs that 'become available' are the bittersweet consequences of an unrelated objective (or accident). That is the difference.

Answer 3

A) NOT so. It isn't EVERY living bit of tissue, it's ONLY the fertilized and developing embryo that possess the soul. Otherwise, selling your hair for charity would be a mortal sin.

B) Any organ is like any other organ. If the original owner has no further use for it, being dead, why not give it to someone else. The organ is NOT the donor. It does NOT have any part of the owner's soul. That left the body at death and went Home to God.

C) Think before you ask. And research your question better. Then you probably wouldn't have to ask at all.

Answer 4

I think you're getting a bit critical here against all Christians. As a christian, I have no problem with stem cell research or with organ donation, nor do I see it as interfering with God's work.

The problem with stem cell research, as I see it, comes from the possibility that they will abort more babies just to get the stem cells. From the research I've seen, there has been just as much benefit from artificial stem cells as from "natural" ones.

It's the same theory as growing or cloning humans for organ donation and using DNA manipulation to get the "made-to-order" child. It's the mis-use of technology that we should be against.

Answer 5

Embryonic stem cell is what that I am against.Full grown men and
women has been proved to be the best to work with anyway.The
willful taking the life of a baby except for saving the mothers life or the
baby's life is all I could support.
There is a world of difference in killing a baby and a adult donating brain stem cells.
In Christ in Love,
TJ57

Answer 6

For me, the thing is stem cell research can SAVE LIVES. I'm not sure what the debate is. And embryonic stem cell research is not as common as people think. Plus, it's still legal to have an abortion in most states. So, if a woman makes that choice should we use the cells to SAVE LIVES, or just throw them away?

Answer 7

Embronic stem cells are taken from aborted infants who would went on living, had man not ended their life. They have no say whatsoever in this process. Organ Donors, on the other hand, donate their organs before, and are harvested after their death by whatever means God ends the life.

Answer 8

If stem cell and transplants can save people's lives, then I have nothing against them. Some people are against stem cell because those cells come from aborted babies. I'm thinking if they are already aborted, protesting isn't gonna bring them back.

Answer 9

the difference is that organ transplants come from already dead people. killing stem cells is killing something is living and would become a person. (just like aborting a 3 month old baby).

Answer 10

what else should be done with those stem cells besides throwing them away as they are now? What a waste. Christians would rather throw away these left over stem cells then use them to save lives and relieve suffering.