The Ethics of Brainless ‘Spare Bodies’
The recent debates over in vitro fertilization and surrogacy have taught us that most Christians aren’t prepared with answers for what’s ahead. And that means we will be in even more trouble with crazier and more dystopian-sounding technology, which is surely on the way. If we do not embrace a robust theology of what it means to be human that includes the design and inherent goodness of the body, we’ll have no idea whether to reject, redeem, or participate in the innovations.
Just recently, an article in the MIT Technology Review explored growing human bodies without brains or consciousness in order to harvest their organs for transplant. According to the authors, who are three researchers at Stanford, the ability to create “spare bodies” for parts may be closer than we think. In fact, it’s close enough that, they said, the public and lawmakers must start thinking through the issue now.
“Recent advances in biotechnology,” the article stated, “now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain.” Such “bodyoids,” as they call them, are possible due to recent medical innovations like pluripotent stem cells that “mimic” embryos, genetic techniques to inhibit brain development, and artificial uterus technology, which could be used to grow the bodies. Combined, these techniques could result in “a potentially unlimited source of human bodies... that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain.”
The authors admit that many may find this possibility “disturbing,” but, in a familiar refrain, argue that the potential benefits outweigh the risk. After all, bodyoids could enable faster approval of new drugs, shorter wait times for organ replacement, and many lives saved.
Yes, movies have been made to warn us against this kind of thing. Not least of which, Michael Bay’s The Island, with its plot about clones grown in a sealed-off community so customers in the real world can harvest their organs, is chillingly prescient. In that film, the moral conflict comes when the “bodyoids” become conscious. But does that make a difference? What if they were grown not from actual embryos, but from adult stem cells that behave like embryos? What if they’re not whole bodies, but only collections of organs? Isn’t this the type of stem cell research that bioethicists were advocating for years ago?
Even if “bodyoids” would be mere spare parts, how many “spare parts” should we transplant into someone’s body and for what reasons? Is there a number of parts that is “too far”? Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, “bodyoids” reached the stage at which they could replace much or even most of a person’s body and were even better parts, possibly delaying or reversing aging. Is that something we should do? At what point does a quest for health become a quest for immortality? What even is a human body, if not the sum of its parts?
Behind the desire to have a ready supply of “replacement” body parts is a strong dose of the modern Gnosticism that divides humans up body and soul, along with the related assumption that a body is only a human being when conscious or able to feel pain. And that reveals the heart of this biotech crisis. Most Christians, specifically evangelical Protestants, lack the kind of ethical formation to even attempt answers to such questions. If we weren’t ready for IVF, surrogacy, or the debate around so-called “fertility” treatments, or the aftermath of the birth control pill and how it taught modern couples to view sex and children, we don’t have a prayer on this one.
In Catholic circles, documents such as Pope Paul XI’s Humanae Vitae and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body lectures proved helpful. We need not agree with everything in those works (and I don’t) to admit they represent deeply serious, theologically informed, and ethically and scientifically robust efforts to think through new technologies in light of the ancient truths of creation. And though it’s fair to say that much of the Catholic laity do not always live consistently with this theology, a greater confusion results in not having the theological clarity at all.
As science fiction-style technology accelerates, Christians must get serious about bioethics and the theology of being human. We won’t know what to do with brainless “bodyoids” if we are theology-less brains and bodies. Even worse, we won’t have any way to resist that which destroys, exploits, or dehumanizes God’s image.
Even the Stanford authors admitted that “the ethical and social issues are at least as important as the scientific ones. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.” They don’t mean that, at least according to everything else they wrote, but I couldn’t agree more. Let’s ask the hard questions and pursue God-honoring answers.
Photo Courtesy: ©This Is Engineering/Raeng/Unsplash
Published Date: April 28, 2025
John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.
BreakPoint is a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.
