Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research Moral?

Aired August 09, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's the moral status of a human embryo? Is it a person or is a piece of property?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the need to balance value and respect for life with the promise of science in the hope of saving life.

LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: He's heard from a lot of different people, a lot of experts in a lot of different fields, and when he makes up his mind he'll let everyone know.

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST (voice-over): And tonight, President Bush will let us all know his decision on funding embryonic stem cell research.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We may be able to treat diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, cancer.

JUDIE BROWN, AMERICAN LIVE LEAGUE: It is unethical and immoral for America to approve the extermination of these children because they are no longer wanted by their parents.

CHRISTOPHER REEVE: They're literally just going to be thrown out. So, how can you say that it's immoral or unethical to take those, the stem cells out of those embryos and use them for research that can save millions of lives?

BATTISTA (voice-over): What do you say? Should human embryos be used in stem cell research? Should the government support it?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BATTISTA: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Well, how much do you know about embryonic stem cell research? Researchers say human stem cells gathered from embryos offer the best hope for curing the incurable, hope for people with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, diabetes and Alzheimer's.

All well and good, but some wonder if the end justifies the means. We'll get a religious view from the Reverend Jerry Falwell and Rabbi Joe Potasnik in just a few moments, but first let's find out more about President Bush's plans tonight to address federal funding for this kind of research.

With the president in Crawford, Texas is CNN White House correspondent, Kelly Wallace. Kelly, any word yet?

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, hello there. No, that is the big, big, question. You know, aides right now really want the president to be the one, to be the first to reveal his decision, and so you can say his decision is a very tightly held secret; only a small handful of the president's advisers know exactly which direction he will go.

We know six hours from now he will be going before the nation. He will do that speech from his ranch. Aides saying it was the president, Bobbie, who decided yesterday, who made the final decision, and who also decided it was important to communicate this decision directly to the American people in the form of a national televised address. The president expected to be working on that speech on this day. Aides saying that the president views this as, really, one of the most important decisions of his presidency so far, if not the most important.

They also know that the decision is important. Bobbie, they also know, though, how the president explains his decision is very important, and so we're likely to hear the president talking about the scientific issues, the questions of ethics and morality that went into the decision he will unveil six hours from now. Bobbie?

BATTISTA: I had read this morning, Kelly, in several newspapers, that the president was planning, I think, on making this decision more toward the end of the month. What precipitated the change?

WALLACE: Well, you could say there really was not a change. I think reporters may have been duped by the president or the president was joking and the president took him at his word.

What happened was the president was yesterday in nearby Waco, Texas and he was talking with reporters, reporters asking him when this decision might come. Someone asked if it would come next week. He said that was a possibility. Then he was asked what forum he'd like to use for this address and a little bit later he talked about his travel schedule over the next couple of weeks and talked about going to Milwaukee on August 20th and then he said he would be going to an unnamed city after that, at which point he said "hint" with a smile.

Well, we had talked to the White House a little bit later yesterday afternoon, and the White House said absolutely do not read into anything the president said, cautioning us against reading into what he said. And, clearly, obviously, he had made this decision yesterday and decided to go forward tonight, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: All right, Kelly, we all wait. Thanks very much for the update.

Here to take on the moral and the religious debate are the Reverend Jerry Falwell, chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia and Rabbi Joe Potasnik, host of the radio talk show "Religion on the Line." He is with congregation Mount Sinai in Brooklyn, New York. Gentlemen, welcome.

Reverend Falwell, let me start with you. Why are you opposed to this research.

REVEREND JERRY FALWELL, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Well, Bobbie, I feel that since I'm pro-life and believe that life begins at conception, I'm very opposed to doing anything that takes human life, regardless what the possible consequences that may be good.

All the hype over the last few weeks, anticipating the president's decision, inferring that this is going to cure all the ills known to man, possibly, really are not fair, because no one knows that is the case. And I believe if we do the right thing, if the president tonight says no, and does the right thing and sticks with his pro-life position, and he is strongly pro-life, God will open up other ways and avenues of meeting the needs of human maladies that will be God's reward for sticking by principle.

BATTISTA: So you don't buy Senator Orrin Hatch's argument that life begins at conception in the wound as opposed to the petri dish?

FALWELL: No, he's my friend, but he's wrong.

BATTISTA: All right. Rabbi Potasnik, in the Jewish faith, when they do define when life begins?

RABBI JOE POTASNIK, HOST, "RELIGION ON THE LINE": Well, Jewish tradition talks about potential life versus independent life. And, thus, before the fetus emerges the wound we're talking about potential life. And when we're weighing potential life and independent life, we have the opportunity -- we have the responsibility to protect individual life, even if that means in some way interfering with that potential life.

So, Jewish tradition would strongly support this stem cell research.

BATTISTA: I'm curious as to why, and I don't know if you know the answer to this, but why there is no consensus among the religions on this question of when life begins.

POTASNIK: Well, Bobbie...

BATTISTA: Go ahead.

POTASNIK: ... I would say firstly, the beauty of religion is that we have different positions and we all believe there are different paths to God. I'm not here to say that my tradition is superior to Reverend Falwell. I'm here to say this is what has meaning for my people, and people have to look at different points of view, as the president is doing, and ultimately arrive at a position which their comfortable with.

But I can understand why there are different definitions. We look at our bible, the Christians look at their bible. We have different ways of looking at various issues. We look at war sometimes differently. So, it doesn't surprise me that there's a difference of definition when human life begins.

BATTISTA: Well, you know, interestingly enough, the Jews have been pretty consistent with their beliefs over the years. There has not been that kind of consensus among Christians, Reverend Falwell. You know, I mean, there's been a different position on when life begins even within the Catholic church a number of times over the centuries, and the current position on it really didn't solidify until the late-1800's.

FALWELL: Well, there's no difference in opinion as far as Pope John Paul II is concerned, and I can't recall a Pope in my lifetime who would have taken a pro position on stem cell research.

As a matter of fact, Rabbi Daniel Lapin (ph) just said a couple of days ago how strongly he opposes stem cell research, and I was reading the Jewish bible this morning, psalm 139, verses 13 through 16, which clearly says in the Jewish Old Testament, life begins at conception.

BATTISTA: How would you counsel a person with, you know, Lou Gehrig's disease or something that you simply cannot -- and this person would not be able to witness an exploration of all avenues to cure his disease. Especially that...

FALWELL: Well, I do that every day, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Right. I understand that.

FALWELL: I do that because...

BATTISTA: But, you're -- you would have to tell him that he could not go down a path that others would say it's OK to go down.

FALWELL: Well, you know, if I were in the terminal stage of cancer, would I go to Mexico to get Latril (ph), would I have to go -- you know, who knows what a person would do, the straw we'd grab onto to try to stay alive.

But the fact is, I must allow my biblical and Christian convictions to overrule all else, and in this case where human life must be extinguished in order to provide a possible malady, I have no difficulty at all explaining to a cancer victim or someone with Lou Gehrig's disease, that if God wants to heal you he can, but we don't have to allow the killing of human beings to bring about your healing.

BATTISTA: Rabbi, I'm sorry, did I -- I think you wanted to respond...

POTASNIK: Yeah, I just want to go back to something -- I want to go back to something that Reverend Falwell said before. Jewish tradition does not speak of full life beginning at conception. It talks of potential life. If you look at the bible, there was a clear distinction made between potential life and independent life. If you look at the Talmud, which has much more to say about this issue, again, a clear distinction is made.

So, I think it would be a misrepresentation to say that Jewish tradition clearly supports...

FALWELL: Would you like me to read psalm 139 to you right now and...

POTASNIK: Well, only if you allow me to read the bible to you, reverend.

FALWELL: I'll read psalm 139, 13 through 16, and -- which clearly says that life begins in the secret parts of the human being and God named us at the moment of the merger of the two elements. I mean, you know that as well as I do. You read the bible.

POTASNIK: Yeah, but reverend, you are -- but reverend, you know that Jewish tradition supports, for example, abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Now, given your position...

FALWELL: I do the same thing. I do the same thing, rabbi.

POTASNIK: Well, then, therefore...

FALWELL: I take that position as well. But, I...

POTASNIK: But we're consistent, reverend. We're consistent.

FALWELL: On that one point we are...

POTASNIK: We're consistent.

FALWELL: But the only reason is that's a self defense issue, where I believe when it's either the life of the mother or the child, that the husband or the wife have a defense, a self defense decision to make. But, frankly, on this question of stem cell research, you know and I know, scientifically, that we are exterminating a human life in order to obtain the elements for potential research...

POTASNIK: No, we -- don't say that. Reverend, let me quote -- reverend, since you are quoting, let me quote the Talmud to you. The Talmud says that for the first 40 days, the first 40 days, and you know the Talmud is Jewish law. That really is the concretization (sic) of Jewish law. It speaks of the first 40 days as the embryonic stage being pure fluid. That is not what you're saying.

BATTISTA: I'm curious...

FALWELL: Do you place...

BATTISTA: I'm curious, reverend, when you -- the psalm that you quoted a few moments ago. Did you say -- did that begin with life is created in, what did you say, the secret parts of the woman? FALWELL: Yes, when the, when the person is created through the merger of the elements of life, the male and female contributions of life, that very moment, God named them, called them by name, and from that moment they are a person.

BATTISTA: Right. Could you interpret that secret parts of a woman to mean the womb, though? I mean, in other words...

FALWELL: Oh, absolutely.

BATTISTA: Right.

FALWELL: Absolutely.

BATTISTA: I'm going back to Senator Orrin Hatch's argument there, that perhaps outside the womb, in a petri dish, doesn't quite qualify.

FALWELL: Well, it doesn't have to -- the womb is not the magic. The magic is when life begins. When the two elements of life merge and...

BATTISTA: But it can't live without the womb, either.

FALWELL: Well, we create, we create, as you well know, in in vitro fertilization, we create artificial support now. It's like cloning. Someone asked would a cloned person -- while I'm against human cloning -- have a soul. And the answer, of course, is yes. But, while against cloning, and I pray it will never be, it -- life is so precious and I pray and I've been praying, much as the president has been praying and searching his heart. He's a good, Godly, pro- life man, that he'll make the right decision tonight.

BATTISTA: Let me -- I've got to go to a commercial break here, but let me sample the audience, quickly. Is it Jim up here on the back row? Go ahead.

JIM: Yeah, hi, Bobbie. I'm against this whole process because life does begin in the womb and if there is a controversy about it, why are we taking this chance on making the wrong decision now. Federal funding really approves this process and the other point is that they say, all right, these embryos are going to be thrown away anyways. Well, what happens when we run out of those embryos? Do we then create an industry where we're going to be producing embryos for this research?

BATTISTA: You've raised a good question, Jim, and we'll come back to that after the break.

Sable, quickly, from you.

SABLE: When Christopher Reeve said earlier, about if these embryos are going to be destroyed, why not use them for research and then federal funding can help the research come along much better. And I think that's how I feel about it. BATTISTA: All right. Should the president approve funding for embryonic stem cell research? That's the question today. Take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at CNN.com/TALKBACK, AOL keyword CNN. While there, check out my note. Send us an e-mail and we will be right back. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We're back. And as we went to break, Jim in the audience raised the question of what happens when these frozen embryos run out. Will we get into some sort of, you know, cottage industry of creating embryos strictly for research?

Reverend Falwell and Rabbi Potasnik, do you think that's a possibility?

FALWELL: I don't think here is any question about it. I think if we get on the slippery slope, the issue will be, we have created a tremendous demand and, bet your life, the American way, will begin producing that demand. Your guest there is right on target, and that's my most profound concern about all of this. We never can get the genie back in the bottle once he's out.

BATTISTA: Rabbi?

POTASNIK: Yeah, I think once we use that slippery slope argument, there is a danger to that as well, because it prevents us or impedes us from making any progress. I could see people saying that we cannot have heart transplants because of the slipper slope, we'll be taking hearts out of humans while they're still alive.

So, we need to take some protective measures. But, again, I would support strongly this research. I would do everything humanly possible to preserve life, and I think we have an opportunity to do that here.

I'm a child of a father who suffered with Parkinson's. If there were any measure, possible to prolong his life, I would have welcomed that opportunity. I think religious tradition, from my standpoint, says use this opportunity to do as much as you can for others who need the help.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call from Paul in Toronto. Go ahead, Paul.

CALLER: Hi, Bobbie. I'd just like to say that religion should have no part in this. This research has great promise to helping people who need help and religion should have no part in deciding federal funding towards this research.

BATTISTA: All right, Paul. Thanks very much.

A couple of e-mails that have come in. Darrell in Eagle Point, Oregon says, "The research will no doubt save more lives than it takes in the form of embryos. When religion and politics attempt to control research, we the people are the losers." Darrell, that's been going on since the dawn of time, though, the mixing of those two things, or three things.

Cindy in Florida says, "Many people, including myself, would never agree to let someone adopt my embryos, but would much prefer they be used in pioneering research rather than be discarded. You cannot assume that all unused frozen embryos are available for adoption."

Is that an assumption that is often made by those, Reverend Falwell, who are against this research?

FALWELL: I don't think so. I don't think so. I think people are very intelligent on this and I think the media has kept everyone very well informed. I think the issue is just what your guest in the audience said a moment ago, that once we, once we legalize this industry -- in the first place, I don't think that the end result will be all that dramatic.

And even if it were, it is not right, ever, to violate a principle of God, and that is that thou shalt not kill, and I think this is very wrong.

POTASNIK: Bobbie? What I'm trying to understand is, Reverend Falwell before indicated that for self defense purposes, he would sanction abortion. Why is that not life for life in that instance? I don't understand why it's permitted there, and not permitted here.

FALWELL: And you're right on that. It's a very trouble thing that I will even come to the point where a husband and wife would have a viable decision, but legally I'd think you'd have a hard time proving they don't.

Theologically, in our family, I think I know what my wife and I would have done. We're past that time. And I think rape and incest are not viable grounds for abortion either, although legally I've been saying from the beginning to Mr. Reagan way back, Mr. Bush, the father, and right through, that I'd be willing to concede rape, incest and the physical life of the mother, not because they are acceptable theologically and spiritually, but because they comprise less than one percent of all abortions performed, 99 percent are convenience. I'm willing to get that convenience vote stopped, and then as a preacher of the gospel go out and try to convince the women of America and the world to give birth to that child, they're not responsible for their origin.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience, over here to Chad, no, Doug, what?

DONALD: Donald.

BATTISTA: Sorry.

DONALD: First of all, I'd like to say that my mom died of Alzheimer's, so I'm very sensitive to these types of research and all. I am also a scientist and I think that science can explore other ways of doing this.

I would like to, though -- my concern is from the rabbi, where he talks about potential life. When -- at conception, you have a complete DNA pattern there. That person is going to be that person, you know, from that conception. So you're just growing from that point on. At what point do you call it actual life, sir?

POTASNIK: Well, as I mentioned earlier, actual life in the Jewish tradition is when the fetus emerges from the womb. I don't want to in any way deprecate the sanctity of potential life. Potential life has great sanctity for us. But we have to weigh here. And what we're weighing is the opportunity to save, to perpetuate or protect a human life and where we can do that with stem cells, after five days when it becomes a blastocyst, I think we have a responsibility to favor independent life. That's what my tradition says to me.

BATTISTA: Let me -- I have a question here for the reverend, Reverend Falwell, from Linda in California, she would like to know what is your view on in vitro fertilization or other artificial means of fertilization.

FALWELL: Well, I've opposed that, but not on so much religious grounds. I just think that when you consider how many embryos, so- called, are destroyed before a child becomes a reality, I think it's unacceptable. But I have never made a great outcry against in vitro fertilization.

But, I did say when I was asked at the beginning, that I am not at all sure that we can justify the extermination of a majority of the developed embryos to get one out of X number that will bring forth a child. I feel that -- I feel that life begins at conception, I repeat, and that it is all equally sacred to God, right through to physical death.

BATTISTA: Kate is on the phone, from Oregon. Go ahead, Kate.

CALLER: Yeah. I think that the people on the religious right ought to consider that perhaps God's hand is in providing us with the wisdom and the technology to do this. And I also think, I would like to see more consideration for the people who are here rather than this focus on the unborn. There are differing opinions on when life begins, but, you know, there are people here now suffering. And I think...

FALWELL: I'd like to ask the caller if she feels Pope John Paul II is on the religious right.

CALLER: No, I don't.

FALWELL: He takes that same stand, as do millions of Catholics and many, many Orthodox Jews and many Jews who are not orthodox take that position, that life begins at conception.

BATTISTA: The interesting...

POTASNIK: Dr. Falwell, Dr. Falwell, I have to disagree with you. I prefer to speak on behalf of the Jewish...

FALWELL: I can give you the names of some rabbis.

POTASNIK: Well, I prefer to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. I don't speak for the pope, I don't speak for Christians. I think that I'm in a stronger position to speak for Jews. And let me tell you, the majority of Jewish opinion...

FALWELL: Do you think the majority of Orthodox Jews are pro- choice?

POTASNIK: The majority of Jewish opinion -- do I think they are pro-choice?

FALWELL: Do you think the majority of Orthodox Jews are pro- choice?

POTASNIK: I think they are -- Dr. Falwell, I think the majority of Jews, including Orthodox Jews, favor choice under certain circumstances. They do not favor casual abortion...

FALWELL: That's right.

POTASNIK: ... but where it is to protect the mother's life -- where it is to protect the mother's life, and we disagree as to where protection comes in, psychological or physical, then you're going to find some disagreement. But certainly, certainly, Jewish law -- Jewish law will favor the protection of that life.

FALWELL: And rabbi, rabbi...

BATTISTA: Well, the other -- the other thing that's interesting gentlemen is that with all due respect to the pope, as it turns out some 60 percent of American Catholics support this research.

FALWELL: Well, that is not the issue. If everything is up for popular vote on right or wrong, we no longer have a republic. That is exactly what government is all about. In our form of government, we have representative government. There was a day when the majority of Americans might have opposed civil rights for women or for blacks or even for Jews. The majority was wrong in all three cases, and I don't think any of us want to go to mob rule and say the majority says this, let's do it.

POTASNIK: By the way, Bobbie, there was a comment before -- there was a comment before about the involvement of religion in this kind of issue. I'm proud of the involvement of religion in a host of issues, and I think you'll find that where people are committed to a hierarchal value system, where there is a belief in accountability to God, they also are greatly committed to the improvement of life for human beings.

Those who march for civil rights were very much involved in the religious community. I think of Martin Luther King. I think of the rabbis that were involved. So, where there is that coalescence of religion and political discussion, I think you have a very healthy kind of involvement.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience. Bob, comments?

BOB, AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, I want to speak to Reverend Falwell for a moment. Both my parents are deceased, but my wife's mother is still alive and they're like sisters. I can't describe the closeness of their relationship and how much they do together. Now, with the understanding that these embryos are going to be thrown out if they're not used, Reverend Falwell, let's put you in a position.

Say you're 20 years old, you're 20 years old and your father is still alive and he has one of these diseases and he will definitely die within five years. And you've been as close with him as my wife is with her mother. If we do the stem cell research, you're told that there's a 99 percent chance within two years...

FALWELL: Who told you that?

BOB: ... they'll have a cure. They'll have a cure for that disease. Would you say I don't want stem cell research, and you're going to lose that opportunity of maybe another 20 to 30 years to share like brotherly type experiences with your father?

FALWELL: Well, first of all, whoever told you there is a 90 percent likelihood that a cure for whatever ills humanity may...

BATTISTA: Well, I think he's being hypothetical. But what if we get to that point?

FALWELL: Yeah, that's right. But let me get back to the point.

BATTISTA: But what if we get to that point, though, Reverend Falwell? What if they are sure?

FALWELL: I don't think that we should be throwing out embryos. I don't think that we should be throwing out embryos. I don't think we should be -- we should -- embryos are babies by the way. And we should not be creating babies to be thrown out and, very frankly, the thing that bothers me most, I go back to the -- I go back to the original -- I go back to the original contention of one of your guests, there.

Once we legalize this thing, legalize wrongdoing, it then becomes a demand and a supply and an industry and from here on out, regardless whether this ever produces one solution for one ill of humanity, it is still late to stop.

I think that we instead ought to do the right thing. Vote no on the principle and then trust God almighty to show us a better way. He's done pretty well for us these last few hundred years, and to show us a better way without killing babies.

BATTISTA: I have to go to break, here. Reverend Jerry Falwell and Rabbi Potasnik, thank you both, very much, for joining us. Appreciate your insight on this.

FALWELL: Thank you, God bless.

BATTISTA: When we come back, is President Bush in a no-win situation? We'll take look at the possible political fallout, as well as more of the moral and religious fallout, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: More e-mails. Tom says, "I, like everyone else, would like to see medical science find cures for all these terrible and debilitating diseases, but not at the expense of destroying an embryo. I understand these cells can help eradicate so many of these diseases, but destroying a life to do so -- I disagree."

Tracy in Louisiana says: "I challenge anyone against stem cell research to sit with my grandmother for one day and see how heartbreaking it is to watch a great woman's mind deteriorate. I wish the technology were available earlier so she could have been saved from this."

Joining us now is Janet Parshall, host of "Janet Parshall's America" on the Salem Radio Network. She is coauthor with her husband of the "Light in the City, Why Christians Must Advance and Not Retreat"

And also with us, Maureen Britell, executive director of "Voters For Choice," a group founded by Gloria Steinem and Planned Parenthood. Welcome to both of you.

Janet, what do you expect -- the president to do tonight? I know it's a tough question.

JANET PARSHALL, SALEM RADIO NETWORK: It is. What I expect him to do is keep his promise, Bobbie. On the campaign trail he talked about putting into place a culture of life. And I do know that he has anguished over this decision and I do know that it is going to be very thoughtful and I do appreciate his consulting all kinds of people.

But I think as a statesmen he will have above all else consulted a higher authority on this one, and I do believe that he will decide very carefully, very judiciously, in such a way as to protect life, as to understand. And by the way, we have point out a sharp distinction here: We should be thrilled that we have this technology known as stem cell research. The problematic word is embryonic stem cell research.

I think what the president will work is work hard for the passage of legislation to in both the House and the Senate on two bits of legislation called the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act, which basically says let's throw a ton of money at adult stem cell research with out destroying, not potential, as we heard earlier, but life with potential. There is a stark distinction there.

BATTISTA: Maureen, would you expect, or are you hoping, I would guess, to see some sort of compromise tonight?

MAUREEN BRITELL, VOTERS FOR CHOICE: Well, Voters for Choice is very concerned that any sort of convoluted response from Bush short of full federal funding would be unacceptable to us and a huge blow to the scientific community.

I have to remind you that we are talking about embryonic tissue that is stored in a freezer and is going to be destroyed. How can we turn our back on the opportunity of saving millions of Americans live through research?

BATTISTA: What does -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

PARSHALL: I'm sorry, Bobbie, may I pick up on that, "that's going to be destroyed," I think that is extremely important. If we use the standard here for our measurement of truth, and that is what we are striving for here as, they are going to be destroyed, they are going to be killed anyway, then you can take that to its logical conclusion and say we have prisoners on death row, they are going to be destroyed anyway, we have the homeless, many of them are going to be destroyed anyway.

And Nazi Germany could have said they are in the box cars, they are going to be destroyed anyway. If we start opening that door to utilitarianism, to a kind of deadly reactionalism that says any means whatsoever is justifiable as long we get to our desired end, then we have opened the gates of hell, and I think we had better be very careful in this country.

BRITELL: I think I would like to pick up on where she left off with where we do we draw the line. These are families who are hoping to have a pregnancy. These are couples who are infertile and these are couples who have decided to not to use these extra embryonic tissues.

Now where do we draw the line? Are we now going to force these women to carry every single embryonic cell that was produced in hoping -- of having a baby? Are they now going to have to give birth to every single one? Where do we draw the line and where do we allow the families to make these very private decisions and consultations with their doctors and not the politicians?

PARSHALL: Bobbie, may I offer a suggestion of where we might put that line? It was amazing to sit here in Washington, D.C. And watch testimony by several couples who testified here in Congress as they sat with their children, former embryos, happily adopted by this mom and this dad.

BATTISTA: I have to go to break, but I have question for you. We will be back in just a moment and we will continue here. By the way, even scientists can be torn when it comes to this. We will talk with an infertility specialist's view when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We will resume our debate on stem cell research in just a moment here, but first, joining us in Atlanta is Dr. Carlene Elsner. She is a reproductive endocrinologist partner at Reproductive Biology Associates, which is a leading infertility clinic. Dr. Elsner, thanks for being here.

DR. CARLENE ELSNER, REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGIST: It's my pleasure.

BATTISTA: One of the big questions is this whole seemingly possible or potential for stem cell research. What exactly do we know about what can be accomplished with stem cell research?

ELSNER: I think there is great potential for this, Bobbie, in treating -- in developing cures perhaps, but currently in advancing treatment for a number of diseases including diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury.

I think the possibilities are endless here.

BATTISTA: Why is thought that embryonic stem cell research is better or might produce better results that adult?

ELSNER: Well you know embryonic tissues are undifferentiated, and so they can develop into all of the different tissues of the body. And there is great potential in this avenue, I think.

BATTISTA: Should we know that for sure before we start federally funding it?

ELSNER: I do think we know that already. That's not controversial.

BATTISTA: Just to clear up for folks, and we should probably go to Carl in the audience because his daughter is a prime example of this, what happens when you go to a fertility clinic and a number of embryos are created, and in Carl's case your daughter as three beautiful children now, correct?

CARL: That's correct, and they had three embryos and they don't want them destroyed, of course, and that's why I'm on the fence on this issue. I haven't applauded one side or the other. I really don't know. I'm aligned with the Christian movement, by the same token I can understand the other side. So I don't really know what the answer is which is why I'm here to try to determine what I want to do in my own mind.

BATTISTA: So, Doctor, how are they stored, how are they handled and what do most people do?

ELSNER: They are frozen in liquid nitrogen. And this is a very common situation for a couple to come because they are having difficulty becoming pregnant. There is no other possibility for them to have a baby and they want to have a family as anyone else does. And so what we do is we do in-vitro fertilization for them.

We harvest eggs from the woman's body, we then inseminate them with the sperm, and make embryos. We then replace those embryos back into the lady's uterus and pregnancies result. But you need to understand that maybe only one in five embryos may implant and ultimately develop to a baby. And so the question arises, what do you do with the rest of them, because a number of embryos are developed.

Now I think there are three possibilities here as it stands right now. One is, when a couple use them and choose maybe to have a larger family and that's wonderful, if that's what they choose to do.

If their family, however, is complete, and they don't want anymore children -- perhaps they can't afford to raise anymore children -- then the next most wonderful option, I think, is for them to give those embryos up for donation to a couple that might be less fortunate.

However, if that is not a possibility for them, morally or ethically or for whatever reason, if it's not a possibility for them to give those embryos up for adoption, then many times their decision will be to have those embryos thawed out and discarded, and I think this is a tremendous tragedy, because those -- you have to understand, these embryos are -- they don't belong to me, even though we may have 5,000 or more stored at RBA. They belong to the couple.

And so it's a couple's decision and what they want to do with them. And if they are not going to have the child and if they are not going to give the embryos up for adoption, then I think a wonderful thing to do would be perhaps allow those embryos to be used to perhaps save other people's lives.

BATTISTA: Janet -- let me get Janet to respond to that quickly, because that is a dilemma as it is for Carl's daughter as to what to do with left-over embryos.

PARSHALL: You know, Bobbie, Blaise Pascal, the 13th century mathematician, said "science begins on the frontier of theology," and that's why this can't be just discussed in a Petri dish or in a laboratory. There are decidedly moral components to this, and to say that we simply are going to discard them raises the specter of multiplicity of questions, again, recognizing that life does begin at conception.

I would love all the people in your audience today, Bobbie, who didn't start out as an embryo to please raise their hand. We'll wait.

BATTISTA: But Janet, Janet, what would you do with those extra embryos if you are not comfortable with adoption and you can't simply -- you cannot expand your family? What are they to do?

PARSHALL: I think this is the next chapter that must necessarily be part of the American dialogue. As I was saying before we went to break the last time, it was precious to see this mom and dad sit before a House committee with two little (UNINTELLIGIBLE) children on their lap who were frozen embryos, and they were adopted through a project called Project Snowflake.

When we have the bureaucracy of adoption laws in this country, what a wonderful way to say to millions of Americans who would love to have a child, wait a minute, before you throw that down the drain, that baby, I would love to take it on. So, I think we engage the culture, we enlarge the dialogue, and we tear down some of the laws that deal with adoption restraints in this country.

BATTISTA: I got to take a quick break here. We will be back in just a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Ben in Kansas makes this observation: "If federal government don't control this research, the benefits will only be afforded by the rich, once again separating the rich/poor gap even more, like prescription drugs are doing right now." And that sort of goes along with Nakia's (ph) question, which was about who benefits. Right, Nakia (ph)?

NAKIA: Right. My question is: if we decide to federally fund this with taxpayers dollars, who is going to be privy to such treatment? Is it then going to become a war between the haves and have-nots? So, then, if my tax dollars are going to fund it and I'm not one of the haves, how do I benefit from that? How do I benefit from that is what I want to know?

BATTISTA: Doctor?

BRITELL: I think that's the very reason you want to have federal funding, because if you have this in private hands, then of course it is going to be the person who can afford it who gets the benefit.

However, if you have federal funding, and this can be done in universities and research facilities -- number one, you can have guidelines, and that means that we are not creating embryos perhaps for this purpose, but we are only using embryos that would not otherwise have the opportunity to result in a baby. So that's number one.

And number two, if it's happening in an university setting, these settings allow for treatment for all people, regardless of their ability to pay. And I think these are two very good reasons why we want federal guidelines and federal funding. Remember, it's happening anyway.

BATTISTA: Janet.

PARSHALL: Well, I find it interesting, because we have countries like France and Germany that have actually outlawed this, because they understand where that can lead.

But Nakia (ph) raises a very important question, and that is what is the federal government's role? In fact, maybe the question should be: should the federal government be playing a role in this anyway?

We've heard some people say, well, it's part of the private sector right now, that's OK if it's part of the private sector, let the private sector do what the private sector wants, but we as the people, we as a country can have a clear conscience and say we did nothing, collectively and through the long arm of government to enforce and camp and entrench this diabolical practice, which we all know, by the way, won't end with frozen embryos.

The question was asked earlier, well, if it is in a Petri dish as opposed to the womb, given the advances made in science, how long, Bobbie, before we are having a debate on this program about glass wombs? We are already seeing reports out there now about career women who don't want the stretch marks or the inconveniences renting a womb so they can get on with their career.

BATTISTA: Well, a lot of people thought in vitro was diabolical too 20 years ago, so...

PARSHALL: And without guidelines, it would be. And without guidelines, it absolutely would be.

BATTISTA: Right, this is what we're talking about.

BRITELL: And Bobbie?

BATTISTA: Yeah, go ahead.

BRITELL: And Bobbie, if we don't allow federal funding for this critical research, we would also be forced to say that we did nothing to help the research on Alzheimer's, on Parkinson's. We as an American public support this research. We want to save the lives of Americans, and we support it, and we hope that Bush steps in line with the American public and makes the right decision and allows full federal funding for the research tonight.

BATTISTA: Elaine is on the phone from Manitoba. Elaine, go ahead.

ELAINE: Hi. Firstly, I'm against embryonic research, because I think you are killing a human being, and I'm afraid where it will go when you create them. My question is why can you not harvest the umbilical cords on newborns, or parts of the placenta, because I understand that the stem cells existing in those are almost identical to the embryos.

BATTISTA: Let me take that to the doctor.

ELSNER: You can do that, and there is stem cell research going on in this area, but there's reason to believe that in the embryo, the cells have greater potential to make all the cells of the body. So they are actually better, the embryonic tissue may be better for this purpose.

BATTISTA: You are saying those from the placenta and the umbilical cord are not identical to...

ELSNER: They are not identical, no.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Go ahead, Janet.

PARSHALL: May I add that there have been several studies that have come out within the last month. One says, by the way, that when use embryonic stem cells, we are seeing vast variance and abnormalities, and that needs to be tracked very carefully.

Number two, there was another study that came out looking specifically at the issue of diabetes. And what they found tracking embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell research is that they had much more effective results with the adult over the embryonic. So I think that also needs to be put in the debate.

ELSNER: I think there is reason to use both.

BATTISTA: I have to take a break. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: I'm sorry I was caught up in the discussion going on here between the doctor and the audience.

The last couple of e-mails: John in Georgia says this is a no win decision for Bush politically, but this is a decision that can lives, with the research.

Laura in New Mexico says, "As a juvenile diabetic, I only support stem cell research using adult cells. I hope that is the choice the president will make.

Let's check the online viewer vote here, quickly. The question was should President Bush approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Seventy percent are saying yes, and 30 percent are saying no, which is about what is mirrored in most of the polls that are taken among Americans today.

I think we're completely out of time, are we not? Yes.

Janet Parshall, Dr. Elsner, thank you very much for joining us. Maureen, we appreciate you coming in, as well.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Don't forget the president will tell us his decision on embryonic stem cell research tonight. That's at 9:00 Eastern time. You can watch it here on CNN.

Make sure that you're back here at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow, for TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday." We'll see you then.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com