Choose life?

When Missouri residents vote on a constitutional amendment that would allow stem cell research to be conducted in the state, some of them will be making their decision, at least in part, based on their religious beliefs. However, not all voters influenced by faith will be casting their ballots the same way.

Amendment 2, also known as the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, would allow any stem cell research permitted under federal law to be conducted in Missouri. According to the wording of the amendment, its passage would “ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically.”

Most denominations have no objection to stem cell research that involves umbilical cords and adult stem cells. The major point of contention for religious groups is research that is conducted on embryos. Though the amendment prohibits the creation of embryos, or blastocysts, for research purposes, the blastocysts used in the research would be donated “with voluntary and informed consent.”

The strongest opposition to the measure has come from people who say their religious beliefs hold that all life is sacred and research on embryos involves the destruction of a human life. However, supporters of the amendment can offer faith-based rationale for their position.

The Rev. John Baker, pastor of First Baptist Church in Columbia, said that stem cell research offers hope to sufferers of a number of serious illnesses and that science should move forward to unlock this potential. “Jesus was a healer,” he said, “and he did it in ways that were considered illegal for his time.”

Some people, like Linda Swearengen, a member of First Baptist Church in Columbia, support the initiative because stem cell research could improve their own lives or the lives of loved ones. Swearengen’s daughter has diabetes, her father has Parkinson’s disease, and several other members of her family have experienced heart disease and cancer. However, she says this is not the only reason she supports the amendment.

“I would be for this even if I had a completely healthy family and friends,” she said. “I think that we have a moral obligation to use our brains and our skills for the good of mankind, and I think there is no doubt that there’s a difference between a few cells in a lab dish and a suffering child or adult.”

Swearengen said she and other members of her church believe in “soul competency,” the idea that people need no intermediary between themselves and God. Therefore, congregants are considered capable of making their own moral decisions.

Likewise, Rabbi Yossi Feintuch of Congregation Beth Shalom said he feels his congregation would agree that Amendment 2 is worth their support. “My feeling is that there would be a consensus, not only within my congregation, but in Judaism as well,” he said. “I usually can’t say that.”

The traditional Jewish belief is that an embryo receives its soul after 40 days, Feintuch said. Therefore, he said, Jews can agree that embryonic stem cell research does not involve the destruction of life. Stem cell research is in line with Judaism’s value of the sacredness of life and the Biblical commandment to choose life. “People who believe in life have a duty to God to develop and use any service that can aid our bodies that are already alive,” Feintuch said.

Muslims also believe that the soul does not enter an embryo until it has reached a certain stage of development, said Corey Brand, former president of the Islamic Center of Central Missouri. “Islam makes a distinction between life and the potential for life,” Brand said. Because Muslims would not consider the embryos used in stem cell research to constitute human life, Islam is generally not opposed to using embryonic stem cells.

Methodists are also inclined to support stem cell research. The United Methodist General Conference Book of Resolutions from 2004 says that although embryos should not be created with the intention of destroying them, research on existing embryos is “morally tolerable” because “most, if not all, of these excess embryos will be discarded.”

That distinction, however, is not recognized by denominations opposed to Amendment 2. They argue that it doesn’t matter how the embryos are obtained — embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of a human life. The Rev. David Baker, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Belton, cites a number of scripture passages that support the belief that life begins at conception. Psalm 139 says that God knew us before we were formed, he said. A story in the Gospel of Luke recounts that John the Baptist jumped for joy in his mother’s womb.

Catholics have been among the most vocal opponents of Amendment 2. In 1965, Pope Paul VI directed Catholics to protect life from the moment of conception. In the spirit of that directive, Missouri’s Catholic bishops released a letter Sept. 30 rallying Catholics to the polls next month to vote against the amendment. “[N]o human life, at any stage of its development, may ever be taken for the sake of someone else’s gain,” the letter says. “The teaching of Christ is and remains that every human life, at every stage of development, deserves our ultimate respect and protection.”

Chris Pierret, a doctoral candidate at MU and member of Columbia’s Sacred Heart Catholic Church, is conducting research with stem cells derived from human bone marrow and the embryonic stem cells of mice. However, in accordance with the official Catholic position, he is opposed to research that involves human embryos.

“As a Catholic, I strongly believe that a child receives that sanctity of life at conception, and because human embryonic stem cell research harvests cells from an embryo between five and 14 days after that conception, I can’t possibly support it,” he said.

Although Amendment 2 states that human cloning will be banned in Missouri, Pierret said he believes Amendment 2 will open the door for somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is also known as therapeutic cloning and research cloning. He said he is also concerned that Amendment 2 could lead to the exploitation of women who donate eggs, a thought echoed in the Catholic bishops’ pastoral letter.

Pierret said voters should educate themselves on the science of stem cell research and their religious beliefs or personal philosophies before voting for or against Amendment 2. “This issue crosses so many boundaries of who we are that it’s not enough just to learn about stem cell science,” he said. “At the end of the day, you have to take those things home and decide how they fit with who you are and how you see life.”

Religions that, unlike Christianity, do not focus on a central religious figure are less likely to have a dogmatic view of controversial issues like embryonic stem cell research. Followers of Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, are left to develop their own personal beliefs, said Signe Cohen, a religious studies professor at MU. “They’re looking to find their own views of what is right,” she said.

Hindus may be of two minds about embryonic stem cell research, since the faith has two views of when life begins. Some believe human beings receive their souls at conception, which is considered the beginning of rebirth after reincarnation; others believe that an embryo does not receive a soul until after the first three months of gestation.

Cohen said Buddhists are more likely to oppose embryonic stem cell research because they believe it involves harming a living being, which violates one of the fundamental principles of Buddhism.

While religion may provide some moral guidelines for Amendment 2, each voter ultimately must make a personal decision.

State Rep. Brian Baker (R-Belton), is the co-pastor of First Baptist in Belton. While he has made his opposition to Amendment 2 known from the pulpit, he said he has never cited his religion while arguing against the measure from the floor of the House.

“I don’t force my faith on anybody,” he said. “I tell them the truth and what I believe and allow them to make their own decisions.”