Why are some Christians against Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Question

I am a Christian and I just wanted to get a sampling of opinions and thoughts regarding the ethics of stem cell research from a Christian perspective.

*Please note I have not mentioned my position on this issue.*

- Please be respectful in your answers. This question is directed towards Christians and intended for Christians to respond to. Disrespectful answers will be ignored.

Thank You in Advance!

Answer 1

I think they are against it because they are under the misconception that life begins in the womb.

What they don't understand is that life doesn't begin in the womb, but that living cells naturally combine in the womb.

Some Christians are under the impression that there is a spark of life that takes place when cells unite. This doesn't happen.

Basically when a sperm enters an egg, it brings life with it, as does the egg. There is no spark, it is just a continuation of existing life.

Answer 2

The main reason I'm aware of is the fact that the embryo has to be killed in order to do the stem cell research. The belief is that life begins at conception. This is supported by scripture:

4Then the word of the Lord came to me [Jeremiah], saying,

5Before I formed you in the womb I knew [and] approved of you [as My chosen instrument], and before you were born I separated and set you apart, consecrating you; [and] I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.(B)

This comes from Jeremiah 1:4-5 I got it from the Amplified translation.

Answer 3

There are two issues....one is how the stem cells are created and the other is how is the research paid for.

Most christian (and many others) would object to the concept of creating human embryos simply to harvest stem cells. If human life starts at conception, this is, theologically, akin to murder.

The second is whether tax dollars should be used to fund the research. Except for things like the development of nuclear weapons, government sponsorship of research tends to inhibit discovery. The money can be better spent fixing roads than on medical research which can be funded easily from non-governmental sources.

Answer 4

I believe to destroy a life to save another is wrong.
Genetically, an embryo is a human being. A very tiny, undeveloped human being, but a human being nonetheless. Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to all sorts of good that might result. They paint glowing pictures of the diseases that might be cured and the people who might be helped. But does this justify killing an innocent human being?

Answer 5

They think that life begins at conception. The thought that a bundle of 150 cells deserves the same rights as a person witha back injury, seems to me, a bit foolish.

Answer 6

Because the embryo is destroyed.
The embryo is human, at a particular stage in human life, and destroying it is destroying a human life.

The end does not justify the means.

Also, embryonic stem cell research has helped ZERO diseases. Adult stem cell research (cord blood, placenta, etc) has helped over SEVENTY diseases and does not result in the death of a human.

Answer 7

Because Republicans have the majority of their money in oil. But once stem cell research starts showing promising profits, the Republicans will be on board, and the Christians will follow.

Answer 8

If it can help others, I say go for it. If it's done in the proper way, it doesn't have to be aborted fetuses that are used. it can come from umbilical blood, or from the placenta. It doesn't have to be done the way everyone thinks. That is what they are working on now, and why there is such a high demand for cord blood banking.

Answer 9

If one reads God's Word in Psalm 139, Psalm 51, Jeremiah 1, Job 3, etc., it is obvious that human life begins at conception.

Biologists know that life comes from life—that there is no time during which life ceases and then restarts—thus, the inescapable conclusion that the new life begins at conception. In humans, life does not "begin" after the first trimester, or when the fetus could survive outside the womb. The only defensible, logical position is that it begins at conception. The cessation of that life must be called death, and its willful death constitutes murder.

Christians additionally recognize human life as "the image of God," to be valued and protected. To destroy purposefully the image of God reveals an underlying attitude toward God Himself. Humans, healthy or unhealthy, young or old, born or unborn, deserve this protection.

Thus the question, "Should the stem cells of an unborn human be harvested to save the life of an ill human?" is fraught with difficult decisions. Should one life be valued over another?

While Christian can hardly support murder, we do support medical research and treatment of the infirm. Surely there must be a better, less destructive way. An analogy might help put the issue in perspective. Hopefully, all reasonable people would oppose "harvesting" the healthy heart of a living but unwilling individual to save the life of one in need of a heart transplant. Is this any different from harvesting an unborn's cells to save another? I think not.

There's a better alternative. In adult humans there remains the possibility of triggering certain cells to return to their stem cell capabilities. Likewise, umbilical cords retain much of this versatility. Who knows what other options are present? Let's look for them rather than focusing on killing the unborn.

Much of this destructive impulse derives from possible huge profits as well as personal pride. But I think the issue goes deeper for many. Evolution has often been exposed on these pages as the anti-God religion. It has justified untold brutality and death throughout the millennia, including racism, the holocaust, abortion, etc. Could we not conclude that hatred for the "image of God in man" is a major doctrine of this religion, and destruction of that "image" its sacrament? Nothing else explains the fervor with which it is demanded and the unwillingness to consider options.


According to a news story I heard on the radio, there have to date been zero cures for diseases made from the embryonic stem cell lines.

Adult stem cells on the other hand have been used to cure some types of blindness, and researchers have made some advances in matters related to diabetes as well. Bone marrow replacement, too, I've read.

Many researchers have been preoccupied with the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, but most recently there was even a breakthrough regarding a newly discovered kind of mouse stem cell, which appears to be something that could conceivably be used for human therapies, even more easily than the lines of human embryonic stem cells available to us. It was covered a couple of weeks ago on Talk of the Nation: Science Friday on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11606647


Edit:"The thought that a bundle of 150 cells deserves the same rights as a person witha back injury, seems to me, a bit foolish".

I shudder to think that I could be denied my life just because people disregarded my smallest form. That even without a chance to be aware, I am denied an existence that would be given to me if nature was given it's course. I think it's dangerous to assign varying degrees of "worthiness to live" to people, based on their abilities and characteristics. In my view it's not at all useful to sit around planning which members of our society are most and least worthy of living. We only need to open a history book to see what vile acts are committed by groups of people who adopted that pattern of thought.

Answer 10

They have the perverse idea that people will get abortions just to get embryonic cells rather than simply making use of embryonic cells from abortions that would occur anyway (or other sources).