Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Right or Wrong?

Published On: October 7, 2025

The promise sounds almost miraculous: cells that could regenerate damaged hearts, reverse paralysis. Or even cure Parkinson’s disease. Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) has captured headlines and sparked hopes for medical breakthroughs. But the promise comes with a profound moral cost.

ESCR involves extracting stem cells from human embryos at the blastocyst stage—typically five to seven days after fertilisation. These cells are prized for their ability to develop into any cell type in the body. However, the extraction process destroys the embryo. This raises an unavoidable question: does medical potential justify ending human life at its earliest stage?

THE FOUNDATION: CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE

The Reformed case against ESCR begins where Scripture begins—with human dignity rooted in the imago Dei. Genesis 1:26-27 declares humanity bears God’s image. This isn’t about physical appearance or intellectual capacity; it’s an inherent status conferred by our Creator. Every human life, from the moment of conception, possesses this sacred dignity.

The embryo isn’t “potential life”—it’s life with potential. From fertilisation, a genetically distinct human being exists with his or her own developmental trajectory. Left undisturbed, that microscopic life will grow into a toddler, teenager, and adult. The only differences between the embryo and us are time and development, not humanity or worth.

SCRIPTURE’S WITNESS: THE EMBRYO IS A PERSON

The Bible consistently treats life in the womb as personal and precious.

David writes in Psalm 139:13-16, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb… your eyes saw my unformed substance.” Notice the personal pronouns: not “it” but “me.” David’s identity and personhood existed before birth—indeed, before his body was fully formed.

Jeremiah received God’s call even more explicitly: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5). God didn’t know a clump of cells; He knew Jeremiah as a person with a divine purpose.

John the Baptist: Perhaps most remarkably, Luke 1:41-44 describes John leaping in his mother Elizabeth’s womb at Mary’s greeting—a recognition of Christ’s presence while both were still unborn. Scripture grants pre-born children awareness, emotion, and spiritual sensitivity.

The Reformed tradition has consistently applied these truths: human personhood begins at conception, not at some arbitrary later stage such as implantation, brain development, or birth.

THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT’S PROTECTION

“You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) protects innocent human life. The Westminster Larger Catechism expands this command beyond merely avoiding killing—we have an obligation to preserve life. Deliberately destroying embryos, even for noble medical purposes, violates this divine mandate.

Some argue these embryos “would die anyway” or are “leftover” from IVF procedures. But this logic fails morally. We don’t harvest organs from terminal patients without consent simply because death is imminent. The embryo’s vulnerability demands our protection, not exploitation.

WHY GOOD ENDS DON’T JUSTIFY WRONG MEANS

The Apostle Paul confronted this reasoning directly: “Why not do evil that good may come?” (Romans 3:8). His answer? Such thinking invites God’s condemnation. No matter how beneficial the outcomes—cured diseases, prolonged lives, reduced suffering—we cannot do evil to achieve them.

This isn’t cruel or anti-medical. The Reformed tradition champions healing and scientific progress. But we must pursue these goods ethically. Remarkably, science provides alternatives: adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) offer similar or superior therapeutic potential without destroying embryos. These ethical options have already produced successful treatments for dozens of conditions.

THE ETHICAL ALTERNATIVES: ADULT STEM CELLS AND iPSCs

Adult stem cells, harvested from bone marrow, blood, and other tissues in consenting donors, have already revolutionised medicine without a single ethical controversy. These cells have successfully treated over 80 diseases including leukaemia, lymphoma, sickle cell anaemia, and multiple sclerosis. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which can form tumours and face tissue rejection issues, adult stem cells are safer and can often be sourced from the patient’s own body. Morally, the contrast is absolute: one approach heals without killing, respecting both donor and recipient as image-bearers of God. The medical track record speaks for itself—adult stem cell therapies are FDA-approved and saving lives today, while embryonic approaches remain largely experimental after decades of research.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) represent an even more remarkable breakthrough. Scientists can now reprogram ordinary adult cells—from skin or blood—back into an embryonic-like state with all the same versatility, without creating or destroying embryos. Since Shinya Yamanaka won the 2012 Nobel Prize for this discovery, iPSCs have become the gold standard in stem cell research, offering personalised medicine possibilities that embryonic cells cannot match. Ethically, iPSCs eliminate every moral objection: no embryos created, no embryos destroyed, no exploitation of human life. They prove definitively that we face no tragic choice between healing the sick and protecting the vulnerable. Medical ingenuity has given us both—and iPSCs are now producing treatments for heart disease, blindness, and Parkinson’s disease.

THE MINORITY VIEW: A BRIEF CONSIDERATION

That said, some Reformed thinkers do support limited ESCR: they argue personhood begins at implantation (6-12 days) rather than fertilisation. They note twinning is possible before implantation and that natural embryo loss is high in this period. Others suggest using already-created IVF embryos destined for destruction is redemptive stewardship—analogous to organ donation.

While these arguments deserve respectful consideration, they remain the minority view for good reason. Scripture’s language about life in the womb doesn’t distinguish between pre- and post-implantation stages. The possibility of twinning doesn’t negate personhood any more than conjoined twins sharing biology negates theirs. And participating in embryo destruction—even of “surplus” embryos—makes us complicit in a system that commodifies human life.

THE PATH FORWARD

The Reformed position on ESCR isn’t about opposing medical progress. It’s about refusing to build that progress on the bodies of the most vulnerable. Proverbs 31:8-9 calls us to “open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute.” The embryo has no voice, no advocate, no ability to defend itself. We must be that voice.

Protecting embryonic life doesn’t mean abandoning hope for medical breakthroughs. It means channelling our ingenuity toward ethical alternatives that are already proving successful. We can heal the sick without sacrificing the innocent. We can advance science without compromising our souls.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: RELATED FAQs

Did John Calvin or other Reformers address when life begins? While Calvin and the Reformers didn’t face modern embryology, Calvin’s commentary on Exodus 21:22-25 (regarding injury to a pregnant woman) affirmed the unborn child is a human person deserving protection. The Westminster Confession’s framers similarly treated conception as the beginning of individual human existence. Reformed scholastics like Francis Turretin argued the soul is present from conception, rejecting Aristotelian “delayed ensoulment” theories that some medieval theologians held.

What about IVF embryos that will be discarded anyway—isn’t using them for research better than waste? This argument, while emotionally compelling, creates a troubling precedent. We don’t justify using condemned prisoners for lethal experiments simply because they’ll die anyway—human dignity prohibits instrumentalising people regardless of their fate. Reformed ethicist Gilbert Meilaender argues the better response is adoption programs for frozen embryos and reforming IVF practices that create “excess” embryos in the first place. Participating in their destruction, even for research, makes us complicit in treating human life as raw material.
Which prominent Reformed scholars support ESCR, and what’s their reasoning? Very few Reformed theologians endorse ESCR, but some like Ted Peters (Lutheran, often in dialogue with Reformed ethics) have argued for limited research using donated IVF embryos, emphasizing the healing mandate and questioning bright-line personhood at conception. Some scholars in the Dutch Reformed tradition have explored whether pre-implantation embryos lack full moral status due to high natural loss rates. However, these remain outlier positions; figures like John Frame, RC Sproul, and the late JI Packer consistently opposed ESCR as incompatible with Reformed pro-life commitments.
How do Reformed Christians respond to the “twinning argument” against personhood at conception? The twinning argument suggests that since an embryo can split into identical twins up to day 14, individual personhood can’t exist before then. Reformed theologians respond that twinning doesn’t negate the original embryo’s personhood—it creates a second person, much as reproduction does. The possibility of biological division doesn’t determine personhood any more than conjoined twins sharing organs negates their individual dignity. Scripture’s language treats conception, not implantation or twinning-impossibility, as the threshold of human life.

What’s the Reformed view on using ESCR-derived treatments if they’re eventually developed? This presents a genuine moral dilemma similar to using vaccines developed from foetal cell lines. Most Reformed ethicists apply a principle of “remote cooperation”—if the embryo destruction happened in the past and your use doesn’t encourage future destruction, receiving treatment may be morally permissible, though some Christians may conscientiously object. However, the strong preference remains supporting and advocating for ethical alternatives. The far better path is ensuring such treatments never reach market by channelling research dollars exclusively toward iPSCs and adult stem cells.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: OUR RELATED POSTS