Thinking Christian

A reader blog about religion and life with Chris Campbell

Stem cell issue


Late last night, or really early this morning I woke up and decided to check out cnn online. (It’s a weird habit I have ever since I was a kid and woke in the middle of the night and turned on Cnn to see that the Soviet Union was no more.) I came across a story on the latest successes that scientist are having with using stem cells. Apparently they have enabled aparalyzed rat to walk again by injecting stem cells into the animal. The stem cells then regenerated the damaged nerves in the spinal cord allowing them topartially recovered use of their legs again. Of course this is good news for those that want to use stem cells to repair previously unrepairable parts of the body. The paralyzed would be able to walk again, and many other ailments would be curable, great miracles of health sciences. I sincerely mean that too, God has blessed humanity with the ability to do great things, and some have put that to use help humanity.

So how could this be a Christian issue? Unfortunately the use of stem cells promotes the murder of human babies. The only way to get the best stem cells that are the most flexible and most usable in different parts of the body is to take them from embryos, or unborn babies (killing them in the process.) So, the big issue that this touches on is are unborn babies humans? Of course there is scientific data that both sides present to prove that they either are or are not alive before they are born (or at some point before being born.) There are even verses from the Bible that both sides present to prove the samearguments . What are we to do then if we don’t know if we are murdering a human life when we destroy the embryos? I think that the best approach would be not to do it. Let’s say that there is some point while the baby is developing in the mother’s womb that it moves from a group of cells (not human) to a baby (human.) How are we to determine at what point that is? When does the be become sentient? When is it alive? Pain, emotions, movement? Are these viable variables in determining humanity? I think that since we can’t say for a scientific fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt, when a baby is “alive” that we should not risk killing one at any point.

This then brings us to the next issue. Is it OK to take one life for another? Can we destroy the life of the baby (or groups of cells) in order to save or improve another one. If we knew for sure that the stem cells didn’t harm the donor then it would not be a problem. This is not the case, the harvesting of the stem cells means the destruction of the donor. The cells will one day improve thelives of countless people but what is the cost? Let’s look at it another way: what if a chemical is found in teenagers that can cure cancer. The removal of the chemical, though, would kill the person it comes from. Is itOK to do this against the persons will?

I know that I can not understand what some are going through with paralysis, diseases, and the like. I have no idea the suffering they face, or the difficulties they go through each day, and that of their families and friends. If it were me or one of my children I may think differently, I hope I wouldn’t though. The destruction of one for another just is not right, especially if the one being destroyed has no say in the matter. If we don’t know whether those cells are alive or not then we shouldn’t take the chance at killing a human being. We should continue to find another way to cure these problems that we are facing. It may be years away or it could be sooner than that (nanotechnology is rapidly progressing and could be another avenue for a cure.)

As Christians it is part of our responsibility to uphold the morals that God has impressed upon our hearts. Should we do this at the cost of others suffering through their ailments when they could be cured? Or, should we help others at the cost of innocent and helpless lives? We already allow abortions should we just go ahead and continue with the murders? What do you think?

Categories: Uncategorized

49 Responses

  1. bhl says:


    While it is fact that stem cells come from embryos, it is also true that many of these embryos (to my knowledge, and I welcome correction if I’m wrong) would just end up getting destroyed anyways.

    Considering those two facts, what we need to be sure of is that “civilization” does not go into the embryo making business in order to produce stem cells if stem cell therapy does prove to have merit.

    That said, before questioning the morality of stem cells from a Christian viewpoint, I have to ask one basic question that begs an answer…

    Why are there so many unused embryos available for stem cell research to begin with? Answer that and then we can get to the root of the matter which is really what should be discussed.

  2. Dennis says:

    “Unfortunately the use of stem cells promotes the murder of human babies.”

    Chris – why are you so predictable? I read this post without seeing the name, realizing just a few words into it that it had to be your writing.

    As the first respondent said, you have your facts wrong. No human babies are killed using stem cells for research, not one. These are all fertilized embryos that would have been destroyed anyway. And while you may personally believe it to be so, a fertilized embryo that will never be born is simply not a human baby. That’s inflammatory and absolutely incorrect. Like everyone else in this country, you are bound by the rules of our legal system, like it or not, and our legal system does not (yet) regard a fertilized embryo as a human. I’m sorry, but as I have said before, the fact that you personally hold strong religious beliefs does not entitle you to your own facts. This hard and fast, black and white approach you take to virtually every issue under discussion here does not serve your purpose well, nor does it speak well of the Christian faith you profess to represent. Fortunately, you do not speak for a good many Christians who have a more sophisticated approach and understanding of their faith than you do.

  3. npp33 says:

    Bhl -

    I don’t have an answer for your question, but I wanted to bring up a point to those that use the argument “they would end up getting destroyed anyway.”

    Isn’t it reasonable to assume that this kind of thinking or attitude might influence our corporate thinking? A woman that finds out she is pregnant and is considering abortion might say, “Well, at least it’s going to good use.” It provides an excuse for a woman to choose abortion instead of life. Sure, there will be embryos that would be thrown away anyway. But how many MORE will be discarded if we adopt the “they’d end up getting destroyed anyway” mentality? How can we use that argument without influencing women to think, “Hmm, life or abortion, I can’t decide, let’s do abortion since it’ll go to good use.”

    I’m not sure if I’m being clear here.


  4. Dennis: Drat, you spoiled my attempt at trying to look sophisticated! lol.

    Dennis, fertilized embryos are human babies. You claim they are not, so tell me at what point do they turn into humans?

    “you are bound by the rules of our legal system, like it or not,”

    Fortunately the rules of our legal system do not prohibit me from speaking of this topic. In what point am I not going by the rules?

    “your own facts…”

    My own facts? You make it sound as if I am the first person to ever say anything like this. These “facts” are held by millions of people in the world.

    “black and white position…”

    That is absolutely correct I do take a B&W position on everything. Though in my original post I try to present both sides of an issue, I still give my position as well. In the movie Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith, Obi Wan makes the statement that only the bad guys “deal in absolutes.” Well I disagree. In this world there are absolutes. In mathmatics 2+2=4, and in all sciences there are truths. In spiritual things there are truths, absolutes, as well. These truths are the basis of the Christian faith which I “represent. ”

    And who are these Christians that are more sophisticated than me, I’d like to meet them. ;)

  5. Andi says:

    My son is going to need a liver transplant in the near future, if stems cell research leads to advancements in science in building him a new liver that won’t be rejected by his body, and one that will save his life, I am all for it.

    Life is for the living of those already born!

    Save the living.

  6. npp33 says:

    Dennis -

    There’s no need for mean-spirited remarks, and I’m surprised Chris continues to post them. Why are you so angry, buddy?

    Regardless, I should point out that simply because the courts say something is so, does not make it a “fact.” Fetuses are not babies? Says who? A bunch of men and women in black robes? In white coats? Could I remove a fetus from a woman by c-section, thereby making the fetus a “baby,” and then put the baby back into the womb for a minute and it’s again a fetus? Fetus, baby, fetus, baby, fetus? In and out? Come on. The courts aren’t always right. Remember the story of the burglar in Florida? He broke into a woman’s house, got injured, sued the woman and won. I don’t think it was a hoax, but even if it was, there are plenty of similar, true stories. These court cases set legal precedent. Surely you don’t agree with such pronouncements!

    Look, I think Chris admirably represents the Christian faith. Taking a stand against destruction of a human, or a future human, is Biblically sound. You contend otherwise, and I want to see the facts behind it. What Scripture are you referring to when you imply that Chris is taking a Biblically illiterate stance? I know you don’t like to get into Scriptural debates with me, but you obviously know something about the Bible that the rest of us do not.

    Dennis, man, I really hope you respond with facts presented in a calm manner, and not with another angry, ad hominem tirade against me, Chris, or other Christians. Hopefully, I won’t be disappointed. Your writing shows that you are obviously quite intelligent, but the mean-spiritedness is a turnoff. I think your statements would be much more effective if you were just a little NICER, bro!

    Love for you-



  7. Andi: I will be praying for your child! Your situation is what makes this issue so difficult to discuss. Whose life is more important? You also claim that the unborn is not living. That’s a hard claim to make, but also easy. It’s a life you will never see or have to explain yourself to. On the other hand you have your own child’s life in your hands and of course you want to do everything to save them. A very difficult situation, and one that weighs heavy on my heart for you.

  8. Bonnie says:

    Actually, adult stem cells have more and more been proving themselves to be a better alternative to human embryonic cells. I think that what concerned citizens, Christian or not, should be doing is focusing on educating ourselves on the benefits of adult stem cell potential and then using that education to make intelligent arguments against the use of embryonic cells. A quick google turned up some of the following…

    This from the National Institutes of Health:


    From New Scientist:


    An interesting place to find loads of material promoting adult stem cell research:

    The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics

    Their number one purpose (as is stated on their website):


    My point is that we have to come from a different angle than just “humans are being destroyed” or else our arguments fall on deaf ears as just being another “anti-abortionist” (I hate that term – how come we are always labeled not “pro-life” but “anti-abortionists” but abortionists are “pro-choice”?)

    Andi – my heart goes out to you and my prayer is that your son would be healed, whether through a medical transplant or a healing touch from God. God bless you!

  9. Michelle says:

    I think we all already know that we will never reach a consensus on this one!

    I personally do not feel that life begins at conception, that a fertilized egg is a human baby. It is a POTENTIAL human baby, but it is not one, yet. In the past, the beginning of life has been determined to be the quickening, and I have always felt this, too. However, I cannot say that my belief is based in fact, just as I cannot say that “life begins at inception” is based in fact, either.

    I don’t really see women being more eager to get an abortion because “well, the embryo can now go to good use.” There are plenty of frozen embryos, left over from IVF procedures, that surely could be used if permission were given by the parents.

    If I had a child that bore the burden of a disease or a disability that could be some day cured by stem cell research, I could not truthfully say that I would put a frozen clump of as yet undifferentiated cells higher in importance.

  10. I am always amused by this position of the christian right. They always claim to take “the Bible” literally, and when they picket gays they wave Leviticus quotes.

    But when it comes to abortion – this is a new doctine for protestants, which they have stolen from the Pope and it is based upon Catholic “natural law” theology, not the Bible.

    The Bible barely mentions abortion, and when it does doesn’t condemn it – in one case even prescribes it.

    I can’t think of a doctrine that shows that fundies only use the bible when it is convenient more clearly than the abortion wars.

  11. Michelle says:

    I agree with Bonnie’s post. If we could find a way in which adult cells could be used therapeutically instead of embryonic cells, that would be the biggest boon of all. I would hope that perhaps Christians with political and financial power would support this with donations and funding. It is said that the Christian movement is strong in American politics, so perhaps Christians should lobby their political representatives to push for funding of this sort of research.

    As for transplantion, I hear what Andi is saying. I may need a kidney transplant in the not too distant future, and the idea that one could be grown for me from stem cells is so exciting. If more people would bother to become organ donors and would encourage others to do so, then that could be one less need for stem cells in the first place. Perhaps all Christians should ask their pastors to speak on the subject. There is a push to have people opt out instead of opting into (like it happens now) the donor programs, but Americans seem to be adverse to it because most don’t either want to bother or rail against being “forced” to do something. Perhaps we should, as Christians, look into our own hearts on this particular matter.

    Just a hypothetical question…if growing a new kidney were possible right now, but it meant having to use an embryo to do it, would any of you offer to be a live donor to someone so that the embryo would be spared?

  12. Michelle says:

    And I meant “life begins at CONception” not “inception”. My typing is bad today.

  13. Michelle: So at exactly what point does life begin? If you don’t know exactly then how do you know you are not killing one?

    Patrick: As far as I know the Bible says that murder is not right in both the Old and New Testaments.

    Michelle:If I were the only one that could donate that kidney and it was a life or death thing, then yes I would.


    Yes, but it is a long way from “murder” to “abortion” – it is in fact a very recent position that a fetus was a human life, and abortion was murder. It is based on Catholic “natural law” theology, not Bible quotes.

    As a matter of fact Jewish law prohibited treating a miscarriage as a “baby” and burying it, and the old testament prescribes having a priest try to induce an abortion in a woman whose husband suspects her of infidelity.

  15. A recent position? What about Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;

    Before you were born I sanctified you;

    I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

    Where are those verses that you are refering to? I’m not saying there not in the Bible, I’m just not aware of them. I’d like to check them out. Thanks!

  16. Ray Scheel says:


    Actually, a lot, perhaps even the bulk, of *corporate* research dollars are already focused on non-embryonic stem cells, since those are the ones that have, repeatedly, actually been implemented in medical use and don’t have the nasty habit embryonic cells show of turning into tumors at the drop of a hat. A great deal of the fuss about embryonic stem cells potentially being the “best” can be traced back to the probable sources for those types of cells – sources that are trying to get funding for research that would buy thier “product”, and getting governmental funding is the best bet because the major corporate biomedical research dollars have essentially written off embryonic approaches as longshots.

    Patrick ONeill It is based on Catholic “natural law” theology, not Bible quotes.

    Natural law (in addition to having recognition far beyond Catholic circles Wikipedia Encarta) ) deals more with conclusions that have been recognized by the majority of human societies and/or are right/wrong choices easily distinguished by small children. It certainly comes into play (grab a three year old and show them a nice picture of a 10 week fetus and ask them what it is – most will say “baby” without prompting) in that Natural Law points to humans deserve human rights from the start of thier existence on, but its the science itself that has identified the starting point of a distinct human life.

    The Catholic position on the start of life is based more on recognizing advances in *science* regarding the identification of the origin of a human individual has steadily been pushed back from earlier minimum starting points. The prohibitions against unnecessarily taking the life of an innocent have always been present in Judeo-Christian inspired writings.

    During the days of the Old Testament, the difference in punishment in causing the loss of a pregnancy before vs after quickening was that, at that time, they were not sure life was present before quickening but were certain it was there from quickening on. As science progressed, so has our understanding of when a distinct human life begins, and – from a scientific perspective – there is no way to deny we take on our human DNA signature at fertilization and exist from that point on as a distinct living entity.

    It does always strike me as funny that this argument for abortion would be based on criticising the Catholic Church for useing modern science as the basis for its declaration on when human life begins.


    This one is easy, the IVF fertility boom vastly overproducing fertilized eggs, plus the abortion industry trying to find markets for cells harvestable from early terminations where specilization is starting but individual cell functions are not yet fixed.

  17. rosalyn says:

    You all present such great arguments, and I am so thankful that people are actually discussing this matter in such an intelligent, informed, and considerate manner. There are many issues to be confronted in regards to stem cells, and such great potential in their use. I was just trying to explain the issue to my 12 year old daughter this morning; it is very complicated. I hope and pray that in the next few years, at least within my children’s lifetime, that we, as a society, can come to terms with this issue and use stem cells without the unneccessary use of embryos. Yes, certainly the issue of why we have so many manufactured embryos sitting around must be dealt with. This is a problem. Babies should not be bred, manufactured, stored, etc. as if they were puppies in a window waiting for a home, or a womb in which to grow. Stem cells can be obtained in other ways, and this is what we should be focusing on. In the meantime, we need to keep discussing and researching this issue; it is worth the time and energy it will take to come to some conclusion with which we can be satisfied.

  18. Tracy says:

    ‘the murder of human babies’?

    That’s a provocative statement to begin a discussion with.

    Do you know how many babies worldwide do not reach their first birthday, how many children live in neglect, poverty, starvation?

    If only we Christians were willing to tackle the tasks we were set by Jesus first, instead of being distracted by intellectual morality.

  19. Bob B says:

    Patrick, I’ll guess that the scripture you are referring to that “prescribes” abortion is Numbers 5:11-31. Unfortunately, that scripture does not say that the guilty woman who was going to receive a curse of infertility was pregnant at all. Additionally, it certainly did not say that the drink of bitterness was a special abortion potion; it says that the curse from a priest of God would take affect based on the woman’s guilt.

    Dennis, this is a discussion of “right and wrong” in the eyes of God, not the United States legal system. There are many things that are legally acceptable in our courts, but will condemn a person’s soul to Hell – if we are to believe the Bible. Jesus talks more about eternal punishment than any other person in the New Testament.

    Jesus certainly placed a stamp of approval on the principals and history dictated in the Old Testament. He continually quotes and refers to numerous scripture in authoritative and endorsing ways. We have plenty of examples of unborn children having emotions in their mother’s wombs (in both testaments). And we have people being punished for hurting unborn children. I think it is obvious, based on Biblical study, that it is wrong to murder people – born or not. To then use the bodies of those murdered people, and proclaim the resulting use as good in the eyes of mankind, is very dangerous. Medical experiments carried out on Jews during the Holocaust did actually generate hard science data. I don’t know of anyone who would use that data, and call it good. The fact that it came into existence through the murder of innocent people makes all resulting uses wrong.

    Abraham Lincoln correctly spoke when he said we “cannot have the right to do what is wrong.” He was speaking about slavery – and it was eventually made illegal. I pray abortion will follow in its footsteps.


    It isn’t an “argument for abortuion” ( another topic) nor a criticism of the Catholic church (also another topic).

    It is a criticism of those who claim that their moral teachings are literally Bible based ( when convenient).

    When it comes to gays, they insist they are following gods word and inundate with bible quotes, criticising anyone who interprets clear meaning.

    When it comes to abortion, lacking any Biblical criticism, they interpret like crazy.

  21. bhl says:


    You are correct as almost always (can’t let you get inflated brother) in that we need to beware corporate thought mentality. It becomes a question of do we need to change the mentality and change the fact and how? Can’t say without the data (I’m data driven – I take the data and use the wisdom that God has given me to make decisions).

    Dennis – I’m trying to discern what is your reason for posting. Your previous posts do nothing to forward the Gospel and provide enlightenment in regards to Christian faith. Rather I see them as arguement baiting and trying to cause dissension. Me thinks you have no interest in Christianity other than to destroy it. I hope I’m wrong. Please prove me wrong.

    Patrick – My young brother (I hope you’re not offended by my calling you that). Do not buy into the worlds mentality of who God is and what He wants from us, you’re getting easily swayed by scripture presented in a deceptive manner (Satan know the Word and he will twist it to keep you from the truth); please note that Bob accurately explains Leviticus and it has nothing to do with abortion. I hope you can find the time to deeply study scripture with the mindset of, “OK God, what do you want me to know.” You understand some of the basics, but lack the meat. If you had the meat you’d know that a true Christian would not picket gays with hate signs, and you would not refer to them as Christians to begin with. I hope you receive this wisdom.

    Ray – I concur wholeheartedly with the IVF cause. I can’t say I agree with the abortion “industry” concept as I haven’t seen any hard data supporting such a concept. Without the data, your statement could be taken as another wild Christian Conspiracy. I’ve seen way too many bogus email threads forwarded by Christians. Had a preacher talk about one “issue” on his pulpit; I just lowered my head in embarassment and set him straight afterwards. We make ourselves look stupid because we don’t take time to stop and do diligent research on the matter.

  22. Michelle says:

    Discussing the rights and wrongs of abortion in this particular thread is obscuring the topic at hand. We do not have to abort embryos in order to have sufficient stem cell lines. We can use the many, many surplus embryos created via IVF procedures for this purpose. Abortion doesn’t even have to come into it, so let’s please not get into that incendiary discussion if at all possible.

    Ray, if it is true that non-embryonic stem cells might work better in the long run, then the research won’t be so stymied by ethical debates such as this one! That would solve many problems! Thanks for pointing that out!

    OK Chris, I’ll pin myself down on this one. I believe that life begins at the quickening, not at the moment of conception. And for the record, I am unable to ascribe emotion to a clump of undifferentiated cells.

    I am really, really glad that you would be willing to donate a kidney. The donation process is much much easier nowadays than it used to be. The removal is done laproscopically, and the donor in most cases is out of the hospital the next day. Isn’t that amazing!! And with the significant progress made in immunosuppressant drugs, a donor doesn’t have to match the recipient as closely as was required in years gone by. Quite literally, strangers could be donors for strangers, and often are. It could be that anyone here, responding to this thread, could be a donor for any one person currently on the transplant list. So Chris, there are people right here, right now who could have their lives saved by you, today, next week. Why do you have to be “the only one” that could save a person for you to be willing to do it? Again, if anyone wants to see embryos saved from stem cell research, you can start by working to get the transplant waiting list down. It’s not really enough to just sit around and talk about it.

    This dovetails into what Tracy had to say. We devote more time to saving embryos than we do to protect the children who already live here. I suppose it is far easier to engage in intellectual fencing than it is to insist that all children are, say, covered by medical insurance. If you really want to talk about moral abomination, let’s talk about the number of children in our own nation who live below the poverty line and who do not receive adequate medical care because their parents do not have the money to pay a for-profit business like and insurance company. I wonder what God would have to say about THAT!

  23. Dennis says:

    Sorry if my “mean-spiritedness” offends some of you. I think it is entirely an appropriate and proper response to the authoritarian pseudo-religious right-wing ideology that many of you follow. Indeed, it’s my contention that right-wing Christians are actively engaged in an agressive campaign to impose their own religious, moral, and political values on others by force of law. This whole debate about stem cell research, in which Chris insists that using embryos constitutes murder, is an excellent example. Yes, Chris, you can believe it is murder and have every right to say so, just as you did. But sorry, that’s not the way our secular legal system sees it and that is really all that matters. I was raised in the Methodist faith, even considered the ministry as a career, so your self-righteousness is really wasted on me. And yes, I guess I am mad about the fundamentalist thugs and storefront Bible-thumpers who have hijacked the faith for their own political purposes and if I sound mean as a result, then I guess you are getting my point. You have declared this is a “cultural war” and I’m ready to do battle.

  24. Tony says:

    Chris, every abortion stops a beating heart.


    Abortions end life.

    I hate to sound like the radical right on this one, but nothing justifies abortion. Nothing.

    We’ve become a murderous nation of self-serving (there’s that phrase again) pleasure seekers and in many ways are paying for this scourge.

    Life means so little to people that it’s not even clear to them when it begins. If folks don’t value their own existence how can they have compassion for someone else’s?

    And yes, a fetus is someone.

    As a Christian following Jesus who said “I come so you may have life..” I believe abortion is the evil of all evils and those who take part in them are paying for it.

    Wow! I know I sound like an extremist here. I usually call for moderation in all things, but, in this case, you either have life, or you don’t.

    It’s black or white. There is no in between. There is no room for moderation. It’s not about a woman’s body. The seed in her has a relationship with God independent of her. This is demonstrated by the angel telling Mary she was with child before she even knew it.

    But, even if I were not a Christian, I’d know abortion was murder. Even if you pluck a weed from grass you’ved killed it. Arn’t we much more than weeds?

  25. Michelle says:

    Uh, is this discussion about abortion or about embryonic stem cell research? I’m confused.

    I hesitate to ask this question because then I will be guilty of taking this topic even more off course, but Tony, your post has made me extremely curious…how do you feel about the death penalty? That stops a beating heart, too. Does man EVER have an excuse to kill ANYONE, be it unborn baby or convicted murderer?

  26. bhl says:


    Thanks for sharing. As you say “I think it is entirely an appropriate and proper response…;” Biblically speaking we are to exhort other to do what is right and turn others away from sin, not respond with temper.

    Righteousness can not come by following the law, but through faith in Christ. So I agree with you in the sense that too many Christians have gotten caught in this notion that we need to change the laws as opposed to being Christlike among the pagans, and those who profess to know Christ but in reality know him not. There is a strong danger that we can become our worst enemy by supporting someone politically who professes the same moral ideas as we do, but is a deceiver and not a believer. For the wolf will come in sheep’s clothing.

    Please allow me to exhort you into speaking God’s truth as He would have you speak, not in a worldly response to your concerns regarding “self-righteous fundamentalist thugs” in a “culture war”, but with His Wisdom and Understanding given to you by the Holy Spirit. For if you are indeed walking with Him, then you have spiritual gifts which are for the purpose of building the body – not tearing it down in anger. Only Jesus is allowed to get angry and he will be so on the final day of judgement… the rest of us need to stay humble, loving, and stay awake as watchmen in prayer that the church and all ruling authority (even those in Muslim nations) line up with God’s will.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Dennis -


    Yet this is precisely what non-Christians/liberals are trying to do, too. They are aggressively campaigning to impose their beliefs, which are contrary to my own, on me by force of law. What religion? Atheism. What morals and political values? Abortion “rights.” You can’t blame us for fighting back against the decomposition and decay of our society.

    Tony, you’re very right. We live in a sick, depraved, twisted society where we even have to debate whether abortion is OK or not when the mother is not in any physical danger from the birth. It shouldn’t even be a question.

    But I digress – the main point of this thread was stem cells, and I personally vouch for the non-embyonic stem cells that seem to hold such promise.


  28. bhl says:

    All, please understand where Dennis is coming from. While I disagree with his approach, I share his concern. We are called to rule by wisdom not by might nor power. Just because a political candidate runs as a “conservative” or professes his religious beliefs, does not mean he/she is the best person for the job.

    Regarding stem cells (to get us back on track), the key is not imposing biblical law (for that would make us no different that the Islamic Sharia courts – except we wouldn’t behead folks) on non-believers, but engaging in wise discussion that encourages and induces a desire to do what is right (and if a nonbeliever subscribes to doing right because of wise discussion, then it is only a matter of time before he/she gets the revelation of Christ as Lord and Saviour), if that desire leads to law then so be it. If it doesn’t, so be that as well.

  29. Kathy says:

    I am without a doubt anti-abortion/pro-life all the way. This debate over a life for a life is probably up there in the top 10 “real” debatable moral issues in our time, along with selling organs for profit, right to die and so on. These are very tough emotional issues which do put our faith on the line when we are intimately involved. My heart goes out to anyone facing these tough choices. I pray their faith holds strong in spite of the odds they appear to be up against. I believe in Jesus’ healing miracles that are recorded in the Scriptures as well as those that occur every day all over the world to people just like you and me. I believe in prayer and supposition. I’ve seen and heard incredible miraculous stories that can and have been explained no other way — it was the hand of the Lord. More importantly, I believe in God’s will and although I may not always like or agree with His will, I believe He knows things far greater than I ever hope to and all things fits into His perfect plan.

    I found this commentary at and thought it was comprehensive and good from a Christian and moral standpoint:

    Question: “What should a Christian’s view be on stem cell research?”

    Answer: To cure disease and alleviate suffering are noble pursuits, and the Bible clearly supports the battle against physical ills. A major feature of Jesus’ ministry was His healing (Matthew 4:23-24), and one of the New Testament writers, Luke, was a physician (Colossians 4:14).

    Stem-cell research has shown great promise in the fairly new field of regenerative medicine, and many groups are actively pursuing new ways of harvesting stem cells and testing the cells’ plasticity–the ability to form a wide variety of mature cell types.

    The most important question concerning stem-cell research is not “Is it legal?” or “Is it cost-efficient?” but “Is it right?” Your question highlights the true issue: what is God’s will? Before we can answer the ethical/moral question, we must distinguish between the two types of stem-cells: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

    Research on adult stem cells has been ongoing for decades and has proven therapeutic effects in treating cancer, autoimmune diseases, leukemia, and heart disease. adult stem cells are obtained from living bone marrow, blood, brain tissue, skin, and body fat. Other sources rich in adult stem cells are umbilical-cord blood and the placenta.

    Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from human embryos. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells, an embryo must be destroyed. Central to the debate, then, is our view of the human embryo. The biblical teaching is that human existence begins at conception (Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:4-5). The international consensus of embryologists agrees with scripture in that life begins at fertilization. At the moment of conception, the embryo is 100 percent human, with all 46 human chromosomes and a fully functioning, unique genetic code. Size and location do not determine humanity.

    Because research on embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human being, it is against God’s will. No amount of promised “benefit” to society or to medical knowledge can justify the killing of a human for spare parts. The end does not justify the means. It is never ethical–in fact, it is morally reprehensible–to mark people for death in order to conduct utilitarian experiments on their body parts.

    In contrast, research on adult stem cells does not require the loss of life. adult stem cells have versatility and a proven track record, and they lack the moral difficulties of embryonic stem cells. Therefore, we believe that research on adult stem cells is a legitimate field of study, well within the will of God.

    Recommended Resource: Moral Dilemmas: Biblical Perspectives on Contemporary Ethical Issues by J. Kerby Anderson.

  30. Tony says:

    We reap what we sow, Michelle.

    We have an obligation to defend and protect the innocent. You can’t get more innocent than the unborn.

    In terms of the death penalty: We reap what we sow.

  31. kathy says:

    Bhl, I love the statement you made: “There is a strong danger that we can become our worst enemy by supporting someone politically who professes the same moral ideas as we do, but is a deceiver and not a believer. For the wolf will come in sheep’s clothing.”

    I also love the way you defend Dennis. You both are right, where do we draw the line and when do we know where to draw the line? Obviously a very tough question to answer and very astute of you to point out, particularly in this present day.

    In Dennis’ defense, please reread his first post. He points out that the embryos that are being used in stem cell research are in fact on the way to the dumpster or else, no way would a fertility specialist give them up, the little soon-to-be’s mean big $$$$$$. Utlimately, do we have a right to even store embryos?

    Here’s an good Biblical perspective from

    Question: “What does the Bible say about freezing / storing embryos and or in-vitro fertilization?”

    Answer: In-vitro fertilization is the process of joining a sperm and egg together outside of a woman’s body, then placing the fertilized egg, or zygote, in the woman’s body so that she can become pregnant. This is a controversial issue among Christians, and the Bible does not address it. Therefore, it becomes a matter of conviction from the Holy Spirit.

    God values every human life; He creates and plans for every birth. The Bible says, “You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb….You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb” (Psalm 139:13,15, NLT). Because the fertilized egg is a living human, there are some moral implications to consider. Often couples decide to harvest more eggs than they plan to use, which means that some of the embryos end up being destroyed, or frozen for later use. However, if the couple conceives immediately, they may never need to use the frozen embryos, which would then end up being destroyed. The Bible does not give us permission to destroy innocent human life – this would be murder.

    One way to remedy this problem is to only harvest the eggs that the couple plans to implant in the womb. There is, of course, a high risk that at least some of the fertilized eggs will miscarry, but this way it would be a natural expulsion instead of purposeful destruction. This also means that the woman may have to go through additional procedures and expense to have more eggs harvested later on.

    Sometimes people, not wanting to wait for God’s perfect timing, get pregnant by in-vitro fertilization out of impatience. The Bible tells us that yielding to the Holy Spirit will give us patience (Galatians 5:22), and so we must be careful not to take God’s work into our own hands when He may have other purposes for us. A couple should not get involved in in-vitro fertilization without doing it prayerfully and being mindful of the will of God. “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2, NAS).


  32. kathy says:

    Michelle, you bring up a good point. My personal view is what the Bible says about judgment:

    1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (Matt. 7:1-2).

    This doesn’t exclude or excuse how we judge the criminal or the insane. I am against the death penalty, we haven’t got the right to take a life. I am against the right to die by removing life sustaining equipment without a waiver to do so. We simply, because of convenience sake, do not have a right to take a human life.

    Think about all the early Chrisitians who were burned at the stake because of their religious rebellion. What a waste of human life. At the time, I am sure, those who ordered the murders were fully convinced they had every right to condemn those sinners to death at the stake. How wrong they were!

    Perhaps some day, people of the future will look back and see the death penalty we currently allow in a similar light.

    Who can possibly say?

  33. Ray Scheel says:

    Patrick: When it comes to abortion, lacking any Biblical criticism, they interpret like crazy.

    I’ve seen that habit often enough in other debates to recognize it as a common weakness in how some evangelical protestants approach topics, but I don’t see how this is one of the cases where there is a lack of Scriptural support for their position. “Thou shall not kill [do murder]” is still Biblical, and now we have a much better scientific understanding of how we are formed in the womb and the Biblical knowledge that God knew *each* of us through that entire process, a process for which fertilization is now the clearest starting point of each of us as a distinguishable unique human entity and thus the point after which human life should be presumed barring significant scientific evidence to the contrary (I would here also assert that the mother “feeling the baby move” is much too subjective a test to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor as the end-all be-all of when a human life begins, though I accept it as one of the landmarks past which life certainly can no longer be denied). This isn’t something the protestants “stole” from the Catholic understanding of Natural Law, it is the obvious application of the scriptural prohibitions against the unnecessary taking of innocent human life based on when we *now* understand that individual human entity takes on its unique genetic identity as a member of the human species. Natural Law arguments certainly endorse and enhance the same conclusion as those that can be arrived at through Scripture, but that the conclusions agree does not in and of itself prove that one conclusion is dependent on or came from the other.

    bhl:Regarding the abortion industry angle, it is well known that there is still an active “aftermarket” for fetal parts for research. I also see major abortion industry players (e.g. Planned Parenthood and NARAL) backing calls for increased governmental funding for embryonic stem cell research despite a general absence of overlap of the interests of those fields outside of that of a potential suplier using its political cloutt o try to open a market. Add to that speculation that one of the issues behind the tumor problems with embryonic cells is that they have not yet gone through the differentiation of placenta vs embryo, where collecting the cells a bit later but still early in a pregnancy might yield cells that are sufficiently progressed to be past the potential tumor-trigger but still so marginally differentiated that they would be very flexible when “grown out”. Based on the previous methods of incrementaly advancing the acceptability of contraceptive abortion, I see it including stem cells lines harvested from abortions as the logical next step for them to push for when and if they start getting federal funding / acceptance for embryonic stem cell research. In any event, the most appealing approaches are those focused on coaxing a person’s own “adult” stem cells into growing into the desired tissue, tissue which could be transplanted back into the patient with no risk of rejection and no need for a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs.

    Now, there is the whole matter of what to do with hese IVF embryos in cold storage. A great many are simply expiring, by the time they are too deteriorated to implant, they are also no good for research purposes – they simply don’t survive being thawed, and even then, a cell in too bad of shape to survive in the womb isn’t going to do any better in a petri dish.. So called “snowflake” adoptions combined with the fertility industry’s own (ongoing) change in practices to reduce the number of embryos created might be enough to clear the backlog of the viable excesses after the “expirations” are accounted for, especially now that there is research showing that IVF has better success when only 1-2 embryos are placed for implantation per cycle and have started reducing the number of eggs fertilized at once to just what they are likely to need.

  34. Tony says:


    Actually Dennis, except for your believing in the ‘right’ to an abortion thing I believe I’m on your side. Most legal scholars will tell you that Roe v Wade is a weak and poorly rationalized legal decision. It’s just bad law. Men make those mistakes but that does not mean Christians are obligated to follow them. MLK and Gandhi both address this. Should we be compelled to abide by unjust laws? No.

    However, like you I strongly feel the faith of Jesus Christ is being hijacked by radical legalists whose actions prevent many from coming to the Lord.

    There is no room in Christianity for self-righteousness. There is no room in Christianity for condemnation, of anyone. No one is spotless. No not one. Realizing this makes you humble. It does not lead you to condemn others.

    If anyone says someone else is going to hell, they should just plan on meeting them there.

    Until we are humble enough to wash the feet of those we call sinners then Christ is not in us, nor do we preach His gospel.

    We need to love, and there is no greater love than to lay down your life for another, unconditionally.

    Or just start with not thinking you’re better than they are.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Tony, “We reap what we sow.” That tells me nothing. Why is the US the only “civilized” western nation to employ the death penalty? Are we the only ones morally righteous enough, wise enough and Christian enough to use the death penalty as a way to exact justice? Has God gifted us with some unique vision?

    Interesting. Just as for you, abortion is a “black and white” issue, capital punishment is the same for me. It is never, ever acceptable. Other political systems do not use it, so we should not have to, either. If we are to use Christ’s life as an example of how we are to live, then am I therefore to assume that Jesus advocated executions? And you know what else? If a man is executed only to later be proven innocent (which has happened often enough to have Illinois declare a moratorium on the practice), then murder has been committed. And if we as a society have allowed that to happen, then we are all guilty of the most grevious sin.

    “There is no room in Christianity for condemnation. Of anyone.” Your words. Then, what gives us the right to condemn anyone to death?

    My apologies if this is not what you meant to say. Like I posted, “You reap what you sow” doesn’t really answer me anything.

  36. Michelle says:

    Ray, I understand your point regarding the criteria used to determine when life begins. Perhaps, however, it all depends upon what your definition of “life” actually is, and that’s when the philosophical debate really begins. A fertilized egg with faulty chromosomes may become grossly misshapen, perhaps missing a brain or anything else that would identify it as human, yet it has it’s own unique genetic code, but is it really human life? The much better scientific knowledge we have of conception and embryonic fetal development of which you speak also tells us that many, many fertilized eggs are so deformed that they are naturally discarded via miscarriage. Many women to whom this happens never even knew that they were pregnant. So, I would have to argue that just because an egg is fertilized does not make it human life. By the time the fetus reaches the quickening, it is fairly safe to assume that the pregnancy will be successful and that a baby will be the happy result, and for that reason, I am happy with the quickening signifying the beginning of life.

  37. Michelle says:


    Who can possibly say?”

    Kathy, several states in the US have said, the EU has said, Canada has said…well, actually most of the world has said. The future really is now and has been for years.

  38. Bob B says:

    I had a feeling that someone would bring up Capital Punishment and contrast it to the taking of an unborn child’s life. But there is a difference.

    God gave life and can take it away as He wishes. God gave governments the ability to take life as well – see all of the battles, wars, assassinations, and death penalty sentences in the Old Testament that God authorized and commanded. We are also told that God has His hand in the ordaining of world powers.

    God never authorized individuals to take human life based solely on that individual’s discretion – even King David was not exempt. Capital Punishment is a government exercising its power to inflict the ultimate punishment for certain crimes. Wars exist because a government is exercising its power to protect itself or its interests.

    Please do not confuse an individual’s act of murder with a government’s act of law and order.

  39. Ray Scheel – “Thou shall not kill [do murder]” is still Biblical,

    True – that would be scriptural condemnation of murder. The “interpretation” part is when “abortion” is interpreted as murder. There is no biblical authority for such a position, unlike, say, homosexuality.


    Ahh – that would be the “interpretation” part. Now we have much better scientific understanding of homosexuality, but those who claim to take the Bible literally say that people who interpret the Bible based upon scientific understanding are distorting it.


    The Bible doesn’t condemn abortion even IF movement is felt, and there is debate about whether “quikening” caounts at all.

    A miscarriage and even a stillbirth was denied a jewish religious burial – not being a born “baby”.

  40. Ray Scheel says:


    It is alive, it has human DNA – what can it be *except* for human? It is not a dog or a cat or a chimp, overally it is not different enough to be called a new species – “human” is the only thing it can be, from a scientific perspective.

    Humans die of all sorts of reasons tied to defects in the genetic code of some or all of thier cells, some of MS or CF or Parkinsons, some of confenital heart defects or blood disorders like hemophilia or easily ruptured veins, and some of cancer. Looking at younger humans, SIDS seems to run in families and I know of a family who lost a 2 yo to seizure-induced asphixiation in just the past week. However, no one (aside from a few eugenic nuts) questions that dying of those conditions somehow made the victim not “human” prior to thier “natural” death. Its also clear that even when it becomes obvious that one of these genetic conditions will eventually take someone out, that is not considered a legitimate reason for a third party to end thier life by some other means before their natural end comes around, much less using that some people die of genetic disorders to justify knocking off folks before we know if they might have that condition or not.


    This is the reason for the differing OT penalties for causing the loss of a pregnancy prior to vs. after quickening. Even they had a sufficient grasp of science to draw the conclusion that post-quickening a live birth was probable, However, there was still a penalty for causing a pre-quickening loss of pregnancy as life was suspected but not known (and it is obvious we now know a lot more than they could). Are you serious that you want to draw a line of when human life potentially begins that is *more* primitive than what had already been grasped of that process by 1000BC?

  41. Ray Scheel -


    Umm – can you cite the verse for that ?

  42. Michelle says:

    Bob B, in the US, it is not a government that decides who or who does not receive the death penalty. It is individuals, picked by other individuals. While the system may be government ordained, the actual decision of condemnation is made by individuals (actually, usually by one individual, the judge, in the penalty phase of a trial.) And those people can make mistakes. Then it becomes murder. Capital punishment is not a “government act of law and order”. My husband is an attorney, and it would make you cringe to know how much faulty evidence there is and has been. Why risk committing murder when other forms of punishment are available to you?

    Ray, a misshapen mass of hair, bone and teeth can form from a fertilized egg, and it will have human DNA, but no amount of scripture you could quote would ever convince me that that is a “human”. There is more to being human than the presence of human DNA. Please do not twist my intention to read that faulty DNA leading to chromosomal abnormality or hereditary disease that still gives rise to an even marginally function human being makes that person less than human. The cause of our eventual death (aside from accidents) is already encoded in our DNA.

    Yes, Ray, I am happy with my more “primitive” definition of when life begins. My own experience of pregnancy is what cemented my belief in this regard. Again, it goes back to what one believes “life” to be. If you are comfortable in the belief that life is essentially biochemical in nature, then I could see how one would believe that life begins at conception. But I believe that human life is more than biochemical chain reactions. In my mind, conception marks the beginning for the potential of human life.

  43. Bob B says:

    Michelle, thank you for making my point clearer. You were precisely correct in saying that the government ordains the system for capital punishment. That was exactly what I was trying to say. The death penalty occurs when the government has placed faith and power into the hands of individuals who have the permission, authority and duty to act on behalf of the government. So, if the determination is made to end a criminal’s life, that judgment is made in the name of the government – right or wrong – so the deciding individuals involved are not guilty of murder in light of the Bible.

    But, the abortion of an unborn child’s life is not done because someone is acting on behalf of the government. Currently, they have the permission of the government, but they do not act in the name of the government. That is the difference.

  44. kathy says:

    Michelle, I understand where you are coming from, but I want to ask you and I do not expect you to answer: Have you ever had an abortion?

    I think it’s real easy for people to rationalize their concept of abortion vs. murder, but unless a person has actually commited the offense and has to live with that decision every day of her life, it’s really neither here nor there, irregardless what the current manmade law says.

    Any woman who has an abortion and doesn’t realize the depth of her decision, I guarantee you she’s living a lie both to herself and the world. If anything, she’s very likely trying to justify her action by depending on the law and the support of others to remove her guilt and remorse, which can never happen until she takes responsibility for her selfish and self-serving actions. This was a baby she disposed of like an unwanted pair of shoes.

    The first thing a new believer has to deal with is the sins of the past. There’s no moving forward, no growth, until he/or she can confess and truly experience the gravity of his or her actions. The bondage of the past will stay with a person as long as it takes to convict a person of his or her sins. And if an unconfessed sin doesn’t feel like bondage, well, he or she is sorely mistaken.

    And the person who doesn’t take responsibility for his or her sins, they are not wanted in God’s Kingdom. I know I am going to get some major disagreement on this perspective, so for those of you who deny responsibility for your sins and think or believe the Blood of Christ washes away all sin without a singular action on your part other than to believe, go back to the Gospels, specifically, Jesus’ words, and read them through prayfully and see if you don’t experience a renewed conviction. Oswald Chambers puts it like this:

    “Sin has mad the basis of things wild and not rational. We have to recognize that sin is a fact, not a defect; sin is red-handed mutiny against God. Either God or sin must die in my life. The New Testament brings us right down to this one isse. If sin rules in me, God’s life in me will be killed; if God rules in me, sin in me will be killed….The climax of sin is that it crucified Jesus Christ, and what was true in the history of God on earth will be true in your history and in mine. In our mental outlook we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact of sin as the only explanation as to why Jesus Christ came, and as the explanation of the grief and sorrow in life.”

  45. Michelle says:

    Bob, many feel that the government is wrong in making abortion legal. Many others feel that government is wrong in making executions legal. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own decisions and upon the effects they have upon others. We cannot abdicate that responsibility just because we are given a mandate by a government that could be very wrong in the first place.

    Just because the governnment says the death penalty is OK doesn’t mean that it is morally upheld. “Acting in the name of the government” has for too long been used as justification for all sorts of atrocities, including executions.

    There is no such thing as a mandatory death penalty. Even if a juror has judged that a person is guilty of murder, there is no law that compels the juror to recommend death.

    Actually, jurors are not acting in the name of “the government”. They are acting on behalf of our society. “Government” and “society” are two different concepts. Now, I understand that there are those who feel that society is best served by executing convicted criminals. But there are others who feel that society is damaged by allowing capital punishment, especially when life in prison without parole EVER is just as effective a punishment. Just because government has given us permission to condemn a man to death does not mean that we are compelled to do this unspeakable thing. Keeping a criminal behind bars for the rest of his life both keeps the community safe AND deprives him of his liberty for the rest of his days, and isn’t this the point behind punishment in the first place? The idea that society is best served by killing anyone, especially if it is state sanctioned, seems absurd to me, not to mention un-Christian.

    Governments in other countries based on Christian values have declared that capital punishment is inhumane and against the spirit of Christ. Are they reading a different Bible from the one you read?

  46. Anonymous says:

    Michelle wrote: “But I believe that human life is more than biochemical chain reactions. In my mind, conception marks the beginning for the potential of human life.”

    Before conception there was nothing. After conception there is something: life. Life begins at conception. Any other way of looking at it, Michelle, is just twisting perception to fit a particular point of view. Putting the word ‘potential’ in there I consider manipulative rhetoric that serves only the purpose of devaluing life. Once life is so devalued at its beginning, is there any wonder at other points along the way it has no value either? Is there any wonder a death penalty exist? The condemned is just someone whose life has been judged to lack potential.

  47. Michelle says:

    Death is defined as the absence of higher brain activity. Doctors can keep a body “alive” with machines. The heart will beat, the blood will continue to flow, but what makes this person “human” is gone.

    At conception, there is not even a brain yet. There is, therefore, no higher brain activity. The cells are alive, but they are not yet “human”. Yes, after conception, there is “something”, but what is it? If you want to say that it is human, that’s just fine by me, especially if you want to use manipulative rhetoric to make your point.

    Of course, we could then get into an interesting discussion on whether or not one needs a functioning, live brain if one is to hear and follow the Word of God. Does a dead body have a soul? Does a four-clustered embryo that does not yet have a brain have a soul?

    And you are incorrect in assuming anyone feels that a newly fertilized egg has no value. It has value because, and precisely because, it has POTENTIAL. If THAT is what stops you from having an abortion, then I would certainly applaud that notion.

    “The condemned is just someone whose life has been judged to lack potential.” Well, that’s a sweeping generalization characterized by inert verbal gymnastics. The condemned have all kinds of potential, even the potential to be born again through God’s Word. It’s just that I don’t think that most people CARE about the potential of the condemned. If they cared about it, then they wouldn’t be so eager to put a man to death. They’d have to THINK about their choice of punishment, and thinking too much annoys most people. It is far easier to see the world in black and white, to see your path to be clear and uncluttered by the possibility that you may be wrong.

  48. Eric says:

    Seems like many christians nowadays use an ‘a la carte’ approach to the questions of ‘What is life?’ and ‘What is murder?’ What is moral, and what is immoral.

    God telling people to slaughter innocent children (because of something their ancesters had done nearly 400 years earlier)[1st Samuel 15: 2-3]..not murder, and perfectly ok.

    A scientist wanting to use stem cells to find cures for many of the worlds ailments in people…immoral, unethical, murder.

    God sending two bears to rip apart 42 children for making fun of a bald man [2 kings 2:23-24]…perfectly ok (a totallynormal act of an ‘all loving’ diety.)

    An individual suffering from parkinsons fighting for stem cell research…immoral.

    The whole thing boggles the mind.

    www. passionoftheatheist .com

  49. Michelle: A baby has a brain within a week or two of conception. At what point would you say then is ok to abort? How do we decide if the baby is alive or not, human or not?