cell research regardless of the potential benefits because there is no known method of harvesting the cells without taking human life. According to Fr. Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, the church does not oppose research, and there is no debate about the worth of the fight against disease, but there are moral limits to what is researchable, what is manipulable, what is permissible. And the Christian Medical Association, 14,000 members strong, is adamant that defining life’s worth by how we use it is “the grossest violation” of humanity: embryonic stem cell harvesting is murder of pre-born children. It also violates the first imperative of the physician—first do no harm.
The Orthodox View
For the Orthodox Church there is no debate. Human life begins at conception, so taking of embryonic human life is morally and ethically indefensible in all instances. Even the idea that embryonic research is permissible rests on a faulty Supreme Court definition of personhood for legal protection as beginning at viability. The pro-abortion stance in general depends on a “lie” that there are degrees of human life, that personhood comes later than life, that legal protections are irrelevant to pre-persons. Orthodox Christians contend that from conception, the being lives as the image of God. The Orthodox cite early nonbiblical injunctions against abortion, such as the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas as well as St. Clement of Alexandria in the 3rd century, who cited Luke 1:41 referencing John the Baptist’s demonstration that an embryo is a person. Orthodox Christians also cite biblical references prohibiting pharmakeia, or the use of poisons or potions to induce abortion.
The modern Orthodox Church also rejects abortion at any stage because it believes life begins at conception. Viability is irrelevant. And the Western Christian debate over when the soul enters the body is also irrelevant to the Orthodox. In the Bible, Psalm 139:13–16 and Jeremiah 1:4–5 say that life begins at conception, and embryologists internationally are in consensus that existence begins with fertilization. At conception, the embryo has all 46 human chromosomes and a unique and fully functioning genetic code, so, regardless of size and location, it is human. Like adolescents and toddlers, embryos are persons. Regardless of level of development, all are in God’s image, regardless of size, level of dependency, or location. Taking stem cells from an embryo kills the embryo.
Although Christians sympathize with those suffering disease or injury, there are moral boundaries that cannot be crossed in seeking a cure. Experimentation on one class of person for the good of another class is wrong, a violation of the Genesis ban on murder as well as the Nuremberg Code used to judge Nazis after World War II. Pragmatically, the money spent on embryonic stem cell research would be better used on adult stem cell research, which is showing great progress in treatment of multiple sclerosis, stroke, Parkinsons, sickle cell anemia, and other problems. And adult cells do not have the tendency to produce tumors that embryonic cells do. There is no justification morally for what is actually a pretext for human cloning.
According to Kevin Fitzgerald of Georgetown University, there is no difference between this and the taking of organs from dying patients or death row prisoners to give to someone else. The unborn are people too, and experimentation on them without their consent is no different than experimentation on you and me alive and without consent. Life is more than a crop for harvesting. Only the dead should be harvested for parts.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research note that there is potential for the cells to get out of control and cause tumors or other medical problems. And the opponents ask that advocates not forget that the whole business is a money-making proposition, not just an issue of whether to destroy an eight-cell body to save a cancer sufferer. Money muddles morality.
Opponents note that there are preferable alternatives, including cord blood and stem cells from the patient’s own organs. Some research indicates that adult stem cells are more efficacious than embryonic stem cells and capable of finding damage and fixing it, whether brain damage or blindness or many other problems. Adult neural stem cells have become heart, muscle, blood, and liver cells. Bone marrow stem cells are repairing bone and cartilage in human clinical trials. There are many types of adult cells and there is no need to use embryonic stem cells that can become 200 types but do not migrate within the body as adult or cord blood cells seem to do. Even adult stem cells from the recently deceased have proven viable in some tests, with some predicting autologous pancreatic transplants, perhaps from cadaver ductal cells converted in culture to pancreatic islet cells. The website of the Do No Harm, Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, is http://www.stemcellresearch.org.
In 2011, Ted Peters, Lutheran theologian and pastor, addressed the Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University. Peters is on the Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and the Genetics Task Force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. The goal of the conference was to improve relations between Christians and scientists. Peters is co-author of Sacred Cells? Why Christians Should Support Stem Cell Research. He says that Christians should respect all sides of the debate and understand the reasons to support the research. He noted that stem cell research has great potential to help people and does not dehumanize anyone. He draws a distinction between disaggregating the blastocyst, formed on the fifth day, before it becomes an embryo, and being baby killers. Stem cells are biological cells that divide through mitosis and differentiate and self-renew. Embryonic stem cells have normal cell function as well as an untapped potential to become any of hundreds of cell types.
Peters notes the internal Christian debate between the sanctity of human life and the imperative to alleviate suffering. He also notes that both sides are attempting as best they can within their perspective to do the right thing, whether it is protecting the embryos or finding more ways of regenerating healthy cells or saving lives. Christians should empathize even when they do not agree. Strong moral conviction does not require malice toward those with opposing views.
For the conservative Christian, there are no legitimate opposing views: God prohibits the destruction of a living human being, and no amount of societal or medical benefit can ever justify killing for spare parts. Not only is it unethical but it is also reprehensible morally. Adult stem cell research, because it does not involve loss of life, is morally acceptable. Otherwise, there is no middle ground, no place for empathy.
John H. Barnhill
Independent Scholar
See Also: Buddhism; Egg Donation, Ethics of; Judaism; Muslim.
Further Readings
Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. An Overview of Stem Cell Research, Updated August 2009. http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview (Accessed April 2014).
Christian Research Institute. “Should Christians Support a Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research?” (2011). http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/should-christians-support-a-ban-on-embryonic-stem-cell-research (Accessed April 2014).
Hanegraaff, Hank. “Should Christians Support a Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research?” In The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Hodges, Mark. “Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Orthodox Research Institute. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/hodges_stem_cell_research.htm (Accessed April 2014).
Hodges, Mark. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research Kills.” Antiochian Orthodox
