(I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.)
Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's not anti-scientific to oppose a particular experiment because you believe conducting it involves immoral acts. You might disagree with the morality involved, but that's not the same thing.
Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral.
In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.
Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral.
Fertilized eggs can divide. Is it rational to believe that a person can divide? Is each twin 50% of a person?
If that is the premise of opponents of stem cell research, they may be drawing rational, moral conclusions from it.
However the premise itself, "stem cells are people" is most certainly definitely drawn from religious faith.
The premise that black people are rather similar to white people, on the other hand, seems to draw on scientific knowledge. Obviously, there's still the step of drawing a rational, moral conclusion from that also.
Scientific statement: "Black people are biologically similar (for some definition of similar) to white people."
Moral statement: "Creatures with X degree of similarity to white people deserve the same rights as white people."
The latter statement is simply unprovable via the scientific method. Forget even about the racism - the statement "you shouldn't rape/torture/murder people" also can't be proved via the scientific method.
As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.