ctor Christopher Reeve has a very powerful commentary piece in the current issue of Time magazine, making the case that we should move forward expeditiously with medical research using human embryonic stem cells. "These cells have the potential to cure diseases and conditions ranging from Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis to diabetes and heart disease, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, even spinal-cord injuries like my own," writes Reeve. "They have been called the body’s self-repair kit."

Reeve concludes that "no obstacle should stand in the way of responsible investigation of their possibilities."

I’m with Reeve; this research offers truly incredible opportunities to save, protect, and improve human lives and human health. It is, prima facie, a very, very good thing. We cannot, therefore, in good conscience, slow down this research — unless opponents meet the burden of proving that it entails serious moral evils.

Pro-choicers presumably have no objection to the use of these stem cells, so we do not need to address their views in this context. Many on the pro-life side, however, are opposed; their views merit attention.

What some pro-lifers contend is that the very fact that the stem cells are made available only as a result of abortions makes the use of the stem cells morally illicit. I would contend that this is neither true, nor even a necessary logical consequence of accepting anti-abortion principles.

In fairness, it should be noted that when Reeve tackles this moral challenge in his article, he does so in a way more likely to offend the sensibilities of pro-lifers than to win their support. Here’s the crux of his case: "Is it more ethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives?"

As I understand the pro-lifers’ position, they would have two key objections to this formulation: First, that embryos are already human beings, and it’s therefore false to say they would never have become human beings. Second, to refer to a human being as "unused" implies that the human person’s value should be judged on the basis of utility.

But I think Reeve could stipulate, for the purpose of the argument, that both of these objections are valid — and still be right on the ethics of stem-cell research. Let us concede to the pro-lifers both that embryos are human persons just like you and me, and that treating human persons as use-objects is ethically unacceptable: None of this entails a negative moral judgment on stem-cell research.

It is a generally accepted principle in moral philosophy that evil acts remain evil — and inadmissible--when good consequences are offered as justification for them. The classic formulation of this principle is: "The ends do not justify the means."

This is a good principle, and it lies at the heart of the opponents’ case; but it does not prove their case, indeed it weakens it — because they have become confused as to what precisely the "ends" and the "means" are, in this instance. The "end," as I see it, is the saving of human lives through stem cells; the "means" is tissue from aborted embryos. The pro-lifers would presumably agree with my characterization of the "end," but they believe that the "means" is abortion, pure and simple.

So let’s concede even that; let’s say the end — saving lives — doesn’t justify the means — abortion. What this proves, even if we accept all of its premises uncritically, is that it’s wrong to perform abortions in order to promote life-saving research; and this, as far as Reeve and I are concerned, is perfectly fine too — because, to my knowledge, nobody is proposing any such thing.

These pro-life principles indicate only that it would be wrong to coerce, or even encourage, the performing of abortions for research purposes. But even the most cursory glance at today’s American scene will convince anyone that Americans need little coercion, or even encouragement, to get abortions. It happens all the time.

Unless and until the pro-lifers succeed in convincing their fellow citizens that abortions are immoral and ought to be illegal, they will continue to happen. They are a fact. The key question, then, is: Can we not make use of that fact in our effort to improve human lives?

In the first chapter of Genesis, we are told that God created man in his own image. Part of that image is creativity — using the intellect, which is God’s reflection, to help each other. St. Augustine raised an even more exact parallel: "He [God] judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist." Note carefully: Augustine is not accusing God of performing any evil. What Augustine is saying is that the God in whose image, according to Augustine’s theology, we human beings are created, brought good out of evil.

We face the same task. In the world, to be sure, there are many evils. If we wait for all evils — not to mention all of the things one or another among us might believe, rightly or wrongly, to be evil — to be eliminated before we turn to help our fellow man, we might well deserve reproach for our inaction.

Some pro-lifers believe that blocking stem-cell research will help them in their cause of banning abortion; presumably, if no good can be brought out of abortion, the task of banning it becomes easier. This may, or may not, be defensible as a political or public-relations strategy, but let’s see how it does on the same ethical test we applied above: The ends (banning abortion) justify the means (preventing researchers from saving lives).

That’s not an ethical position I would find easy to defend. Indeed, I suspect that the opponents would be much better off if they turned around and said, "We withdraw our objection to this research, because it is research in the service of human life; and we will redouble our efforts to ban abortion, because abortion is the exact opposite, the taking of human life."

I have never believed that consistency is a very high virtue; other virtues — like kindness — are much more important. But consistency impresses people. If pro-lifers choose consistency — and bring the pro-life value to their view of stem-cell research — they might just win a few converts to their cause.

In the meantime, I join Christopher Reeve in saying to the dedicated men and women of science working on stem-cell research, you have our gratitude, and our respect.