Why do some churches allow Birth Control and not Stem Cell Research?

[GPS]

1. Yes, Why do some churches allow birth control and not stem cell research, especially the type that involves somatic cell nulcear transport (SCNT). Both subjects involve the destruction of the "embryo" (and I use quotes because SMNT is a synthetic process) at the blastocyst stage. The combined oral contraceptives are the only hormonal forms that stop ovulation. When seeking hormonal birth control, religious indivuals probably will not be aware of this and take their doctor's advice. We need pleasure but we also are desperate for curative measures. So are some churches guilty of pleasing it's congregation, do they just say they allow birth control and not specify, are they ignorant, or am I missing something here? I makes no sense to deny possible future life saving therapies in the name of God.

Edited July 5, 2015 by GPS

[swansont]

makes no sense

 

It's not supposed to. It's religion.

[GPS]

Saddens me

[StringJunky]

Don't forget, these religions were thought up a thousand or two years and hence have the core tenets based on the culture and wisdom of those times. You can't change them because, over hundreds of years, things mature to 'holiness' and profundity and become the 'Word' of <insert icon/deity/prophet>.

Edited July 6, 2015 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Which churches allow birth control that involves the destruction of the "embryo" but do not allow stem cell research?

[GPS]

The Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod has not plainly stated to not use hormonal contraception and in thier Resolution 6-10-Guidance on Contraception Methods, after discussing the differenct types of birth control (hormonal, IUD, and barrier) and how they act on the embryo they come to this conclussion:

"The Sanctity of Human Life Committee was not given the task to ask whether or not married, Christian couples should or should not use contraception. We believe that a broader discussion in the church regarding marriage and its purpose would be beneficial. We have sought to free the consciences of Christian couples struggling with the question of what types of contraception cause abortions. We hope that this document accomplishes that goal." In this document they only clearly state that they are against RU-486, but nothing else. I am not sure about other denominations, or religions (except Catholics which Lutherans will argue is not a pure religion because it is governed by the pope and the bible instead of just the bible).

Edited July 8, 2015 by GPS

[Fuzzwood]

Because religion is made by people and people are inherently irrational.

[Strange]

The Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod has not plainly stated to not use hormonal contraception and in thier Resolution 6-10-Guidance on Contraception Methods, after discussing the differenct types of birth control (hormonal, IUD, and barrier) and how they act on the embryo they come to this conclussion:

"The Sanctity of Human Life Committee was not given the task to ask whether or not married, Christian couples should or should not use contraception. We believe that a broader discussion in the church regarding marriage and its purpose would be beneficial. We have sought to free the consciences of Christian couples struggling with the question of what types of contraception cause abortions. We hope that this document accomplishes that goal." In this document they only clearly state that they are against RU-486, but nothing else. I am not sure about other denominations, or religions (except Catholics which Lutherans will argue is not a pure religion because it is governed by the pope and the bible instead of just the bible).

 

So that answers half (or less) of the question: they disapprove of some forms of birth control. Do they have a position on stem cell research?

[GPS]

Here is the most comprehensive, up-to-date, position I could find:

on July 17, 2007 in Convention, Reporter

HOUSTON — In an overwhelmingly favorable vote, delegates to the 63rd Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted Resolution 6-02 supporting adult stem-cell research that does not involve the destruction of human life.

Noting that stem cells have potential to treat diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle-cell anemia, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and others, the resolution received “yes” votes from 96.6 percent of the delegates.

The resolution states opposition to embryonic stem-cell research that destroys human life and has not yet shown success for treatment of diseases in humans. It further urges LCMS members to give public witness against the destruction of human life with embryonic stem-cell research and to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

[Strange]

 

supporting adult stem-cell research that does not involve the destruction of human life.

 

That would seem to answer the original question: they object to contraceptive methods that (they believe) involve loss of life, they don't object to other things that don't.

[GPS]

The Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod has not plainly stated to not use hormonal contraception and in thier Resolution 6-10-Guidance on Contraception Methods, after discussing the differenct types of birth control (hormonal, IUD, and barrier) and how they act on the embryo they come to this conclussion:

"The Sanctity of Human Life Committee was not given the task to ask whether or not married, Christian couples should or should not use contraception. We believe that a broader discussion in the church regarding marriage and its purpose would be beneficial. We have sought to free the consciences of Christian couples struggling with the question of what types of contraception cause abortions. We hope that this document accomplishes that goal." In this document they only clearly state that they are against RU-486, but nothing else. I am not sure about other denominations, or religions (except Catholics which Lutherans will argue is not a pure religion because it is governed by the pope and the bible instead of just the bible).

The choice of contraception appears to be left up to the individual without the church taking a stance, with the exception of abortion which is not considered contraception.

 

Yet their views are as follows on stem cell research:

 

"supporting adult stem-cell research that does not involve the destruction of human life."

 

and can be transfered over to contraception as well:

 

 

That would seem to answer the original question: they object to contraceptive methods that (they believe) involve loss of life, they don't object to other things that don't.

 

However, I feel they need to take a stronger stand on contraception, because right now it sounds a little hypocritical, leaving it up to the individual couple.

[zapatos]

However, I feel they need to take a stronger stand on contraception, because right now it sounds a little hypocritical, leaving it up to the individual couple.

Are you a member of the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod? If not, why is it important to you where they draw the line on what is and what is not human life? Not everyone believes life begins at conception. Given that science cannot say with certainty when human life begins, it seems rather progressive to me that these Lutherans are not pretending like they do know.

Edited July 9, 2015 by zapatos

[GPS]

Are you a member of the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod? If not, why is it important to you where they draw the line on what is and what is not human life? Not everyone believes life begins at conception. Given that science cannot say with certainty when human life begins, it seems rather progressive to me that these Lutherans are not pretending like they do know.

(Thinking of joining but have many contradictions whith the church, especially when they limit curative research with more pluripotent abilities, deny evolution...these are just a few...the list is long)

 

However, they did take a clear stance against embryonic stem cells:

 

"The resolution states opposition to embryonic stem-cell research that destroys human life"

 

which interfers around the blastocyst stage of the embryo, which is around the same stage that many contraceptives interfere at. So why isn't embryonic stem cell research left up to the individual's choice as well? Are the masses of scientists not to be trusted to do the "right thing"?

Edited July 9, 2015 by GPS

[zapatos]

(Thinking of joining but have many contradictions whith the church, especially when they limit curative research with more pluripotent abilities, deny evolution...these are just a few...the list is long)

 

However, they did take a clear stance against embryonic stem cells:

 

"The resolution states opposition to embryonic stem-cell research that destroys human life"

 

which interfers around the blastocyst stage of the embryo, which is around the same stage that many contraceptives interfere at. So why isn't embryonic stem cell research left up to the individual's choice as well? Are the masses of scientists not to be trusted to do the "right thing"?

I don't know their reasoning, but perhaps it is because it is a complicated issue and they are simply doing the best they can reconciling religious, personal, and scientific issues.

 

I think they have made it clear that while they are not dismissive of science, they will not simply simply "trust scientists to do the right thing". And I cannot find fault with that stance. I don't believe that ANY group of people should simply be trusted to do the right thing. Perhaps 'trust but verify'. Too many examples of people NOT doing the right thing.

[RyGuyFly]

In my previous religion it was specifically taught only non-abortive contraceptives were allowed. It was felt that the human life started at the moment of conception. Basically after the egg was fertilized it was considered the same murder to end the pregnancy. So in my old religion contraceptives that stop ovulation prevent fertilization of the egg to begin with and are acceptable forms of contraceptive. I am not familiar with all types of contraceptives but it appears some contraceptives just prevent the already fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus or from developing in general. So they would view that as abortive and as sinful.

 

Its my understanding that some religions/churches teach that both the egg and the sperm are holy as well. And as such harming them, preventing them from functioning, or using them in a manner other than reproduction is considered sinful. Its my understanding that in this case any form of contraceptive tends to be considered sinful.

 

I hope this is helpful.

Edited September 12, 2015 by RyGuyFly