[Moneyguy1]

I think of people like Jonas Salk. He did help eradicate a fearful disease and the pharm companies profited, but the point is the good that was done.

If cures were found thru embryonic research, the companies would make them available, but the cost for the patient would be high. Perhaps for those with no other hope, the cost would be acceptable.

Whether public or private research, the following must be considered: Some are deciding when "human life" begins and have no rational basis upon which to make this decision. No Holy Book defines human existence as beginning prior to fertilization. Is a human complete without contribution from two parents? I do not know the answer. The puzzle becomes more confusing re: the so-called sanctity of life. Whose life is more important? The mother or the developing embryo? Who makes that decision? What would be done with these unwanted embryos anyway? Are they not scheduled to be destroyed? If so, what is the point of the veto? And, when it comes to cost, wouldn't it be better to spend some government funds on medical research rather than a huge bridge in Alaska?

I do not have the answers either. It is a polarizing subject like most other recent issues, based on emotion rather than thoughtful analysis. If this approach to government based on emotion,belief and calculated cynicism rather than what the majority wants, then we, as a society, are doomed.