So is it or isn't it a human

[LittleSoldier]

The common law which is the legal system for the US excepting Louisiana IIRC, the UK (except Scotland) and many parts of the world.

Thank you for the info. I’m not very clear on man-made law, although I have unfortunately dealt with several lawyers (who I firmly believe were not very clear on man-made law, either).

What I try to emphasize in my life is God’s law because I know it is Truth and that is very important to me. I follow God’s law. If man-made law doesn’t conflict with God’s law, man-made law is moral and just. If it conflicts, man-made law is not moral and just and I will not adhere to it.

But I realize I need to learn more about man-made law and will do so.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Jmcrae - but the paper quoted pertinent facts and referenced them. You are hopefully perfectly capable of looking up references?

Little Soldier - actually I can think of many subjects for which there would be little recent research, because there is no need to repeat previous research. I have been researching the use of polysomnography in parasomnias and most of the research is not that recent.

I’m responding to this post again. It is necessary to keep repeating research in order to determine if the results can be replicated. More replication means more acceptance of the theory (which, of course, always remains a theory).

Attempting to find replication of results is one of the most important aspects of research, especially when confounding factors have been discovered and are removed. No one research project can stand on its own.

I would hope that there is some recent research on parasomnias which doesn’t perhaps rely on the polysomnography of twenty years ago, although it’s been my experience that physicians who specialize in sleep disorders spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about whether familial sleep paralysis exists and calling each other idiots. But I guess that’s off-topic. Sorry.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.**

 

[Syntax]

jmcrae;6388898:

We entrust those who die without Baptism to the mercy of God, but there is no guarantee that anyone not baptized goes to Heaven.

Then God is not a just God.

huh?? How does that logically follow?

Where’s the argument?

 

[Doc_Keele]

I’m responding to this post again. It is necessary to keep repeating research in order to determine if the results can be replicated. More replication means more acceptance of the theory (which, of course, always remains a theory).

Attempting to find replication of results is one of the most important aspects of research, especially when confounding factors have been discovered and are removed. No one research project can stand on its own.

I would hope that there is some recent research on parasomnias which doesn’t perhaps rely on the polysomnography of twenty years ago, although it’s been my experience that physicians who specialize in sleep disorders spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about whether familial sleep paralysis exists and calling each other idiots. But I guess that’s off-topic. Sorry.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.**

The research was replicated, yes - but there’s certainly no need to keep on doing the same studies over decades. Who could get funding for pointless research?
There’s obviously people who don’t want to accept this fact which is universally accepted - we’re not talking about anything controversial. We have to ask ourselves why?

 

[LittleSoldier]

The research was replicated, yes - but there’s certainly no need to keep on doing the same studies over decades. Who could get funding for pointless research?
There’s obviously people who don’t want to accept this fact which is universally accepted - we’re not talking about anything controversial. We have to ask ourselves why?

It is not pointless to verify findings observed in a previous research project. It’s very necessary.

Not being able to obtain funding has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that verification of research findings by replicating the research is necessary and useful.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.**

 

[jmcrae]

It is not pointless to verify findings observed in a previous research project. It’s very necessary.

Not being able to obtain funding has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that verification of research findings by replicating the research is necessary and useful.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.**

Not to mention, there have been a great many changes in the home environment since the 1970s, all of which could be factors in the deaths of zygotes. Have improvements in female nutrition had an effect on their death rates? Has the increase in sexual promiscuity had an effect on them? These are all important factors. I am assuming, in charity, that any of it is measurable, in the first place. I am still trying to get my head around this census of dead bodies where the witnesses at the scene had no knowledge of the bodies.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It is not pointless to verify findings observed in a previous research project. It’s very necessary.

Not being able to obtain funding has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that verification of research findings by replicating the research is necessary and useful.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.**

Yes, I’ve already agreed that findings should be replicated, but you’re talking about the same research over and over again for decades which is clearly nonsense.

Research needs funding. Lack of funding often means no research.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The research was replicated, yes - but there’s certainly no need to keep on doing the same studies over decades. Who could get funding for pointless research?
There’s obviously people who don’t want to accept this fact which is universally accepted - we’re not talking about anything controversial. We have to ask ourselves why?

It is not pointless to verify findings observed in a previous research project. It’s very necessary.

Not being able to obtain funding has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that verification of research findings by replicating the research is necessary and useful.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.**

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I’ve already agreed that findings should be replicated, but you’re talking about the same research over and over again for decades which is clearly nonsense.

Research needs funding. Lack of funding often means no research.

Lack of funding is irrelevant. Lack of funding can be due to pork barrel projects, mismanagement of funds, and outright theft. Lack of funding doesn’t mean that projects shouldn’t be funded - it simply means they aren’t.

And, no, I’m not talking about the same research over and over again for decades. I mentioned confounding factors, right? The confounding factors that can be removed once they are recognized? I also stated that no research project can stand on its own.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. Maybe I’m not clear with what I’m trying to say. Let me rephrase it.

An initial foray into an otherwise unstudied area will most probably end up as a poorly designed and poorly executed research project. As time goes on, that research project will be repeated and confounding factors will be removed as they are discovered. Every project should be examined by its authors and by other researchers in order to ferret out errors in method and execution.

Eventually newer projects are designed with greater care and executed without the mistakes of the original research project. New techniques for studying will be developed. Better apparatus will be built. Later research is dependent upon the initial research but far surpasses it in quality and knowledge obtained. This is how knowledge is discovered.

Does this make more sense? I don’t think I did a good job of explaining myself before.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Adding on to my last post:

The factors that jmcrae posted are extremely important and vary from one period of time to another. As society changes, (I would like to say society “progresses” but I no longer believe that to be true) factors which would have had an important role in research are no longer important. As the zeitgeist changes, so does our handling of research, especially when it comes to ethical issues. And new factors are introduced - factors which didn’t even exist at the time of the original research.

So we need to replicate and improve and replicate and improve.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You’re both wrong, because there’s various things you fail to appreciate.
I find it faintly amusing how you both comment on an area which you don’t really know that much about as if you knew how best to do scientific research
and this only because you don’t like the results of the research, the worst of all possible reasons

 

[WMM]

Well, it ain’t a platypus.

I think almost every pro-abort agrees with … well… basic science that a human embryo or fetus is HUMAN. What they disagree with is that it’s a PERSON (with all the rights thereof).

***The rights of the human person are bestowed by the Creator, so it’s not up to any human or organization of humans to confer personhood or not on the pre-born.

They should get the benefit of the doubt.***

 

[LittleSoldier]

You’re both wrong, because there’s various things you fail to appreciate.
I find it faintly amusing how you both comment on an area which you don’t really know that much about as if you knew how best to do scientific research
and this only because you don’t like the results of the research, the worst of all possible reasons

It would be very helpful to those who read your posts if you would include quotes from the post(s) you are responding to, or at least name the posters. I have absolutely no idea if this post is a reply to something I posted.

Why do you believe you somehow are privy to the reasons as to why whomever you are responding to in this post commented on an area (which you don’t name but imply has something to do with scientific research)? Are you psychic? Are you God? The truth is that you don’t know why anybody posts anything unless you are given those reasons by the poster.

You can theorize all you want; you can invent reasons, you can make a little game of it if you wish to (and I am not saying that is what you are doing; I am merely listing possibilities); you can think about it and speculate until the cows come home, but you really don’t know. IMO it is deceitful to claim knowledge you can’t possibly have.

And you again make a vague remark about “various things you fail to appreciate.” What things? What are you talking about? Do you ever give a straight answer?

Do you really want to discuss moral philosophical issues? Your signature states you do; your posts belie it.

Most Blessed Mary, during this time
we try to understand your pain and sorrow
when you stood at the foot of the cross used to murder your Son.
Please pray for us, those who condemned Him.
Amen.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Please restrain the faux umbrage Little Soldier
I think it’s a reasonable surmisal from comments you and jmcrae have made that you don’t like the results of the research.

and compared to the assumptions even statements that have been made about me?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please restrain the faux umbrage Little Soldier
I think it’s a reasonable surmisal from comments you and jmcrae have made that you don’t like the results of the research.

OK, now we know you are referring to jmcrae and myself. Now I would like to point out that I am discussing research as a whole. How could I possibly not like the results of research as a whole?

If you are referring to the research which was discussed for a few posts awhile ago, I believe my major comment was that the methods employed were from the sixties and therefore outdated. I stand by my comment.

Faux umbrage? No. Not even close. I don’t lie, Doc. If I take offense I will say so.

And it would be very useful for those who read these posts if you quoted from the post(s) you are responding to or at least named the posters.

Sancta Maria! Mater dei,
ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Little Soldier, you’re seriously saying that all research done in the 60s needs to be repeated are you?

 

[LittleSoldier]

***The rights of the human person are bestowed by the Creator, so it’s not up to any human or organization of humans to confer personhood or not on the pre-born.

They should get the benefit of the doubt.***

I agree! “Personhood” and the rights of persons are theirs because that title and those rights are conferred by God. The rights are not subject to majority rule or moral relativism. Truth can’t be changed, though many would like to try.

At the cross, her station keeping,
stood our Holy Mother, weeping;
close to Jesus to the last.
Holy Mother, please pray for us.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier, you’re seriously saying that all research done in the 60s needs to be repeated are you?

No; well, in a way I guess I am but only because that research done in the sixties has been assimilated into newer research. Did you really read my posts? I’m sorry but right now I’m too tired and on way too much medication and in too much pain to try to hash it out again. Let me just say that research is an ongoing process, building on those first attempts to study something of interest, replicated with emphasis on improving methodology and taking advantage of new equipment. Every research project should be discussed with an emphasis on how to make improvements (increasing n, adding more control groups, etc.), including identifying and removing confounding factors.

Then the research should be repeated, with these changes. I don’t mean to say that every piece of research should be repeated verbatim, with absolutely no changes in methodology, etc. and if I gave that impression I certainly didn’t mean to and I erred and apologize. Some research should be repeated verbatim, but I don’t think it’s necessary very often, especially when time and resources could be put to better use.

All who research using scientific method are aware that statistical analysis is based on levels of probability. If there is a possibility (and there always is) that the results of a study (even if those results are significant at p<.01) were obtained by chance, we need to keep studying and researching.

There is a law covering this but it’s been a long time since I studied it and I can’t remember the name. I’ve been trying to find it for a few days and when I do I’ll post it.

Sorry, this is the best I can do right now.

Mary, please help me to be.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes, I understand medical research etc. The process of hypothesis testing etc.
It’s an important part of medical practice being able to read papers and understand what the results do and don’t mean.
I just can’t see why when several studies have demonstrated the same phenomenon robustly enough to satisfy the medical and scientific community at large that a certain fact is true the studies would need to be repeated?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I understand medical research etc. The process of hypothesis testing etc.
It’s an important part of medical practice being able to read papers and understand what the results do and don’t mean.
I just can’t see why when several studies have demonstrated the same phenomenon robustly enough to satisfy the medical and scientific community at large that a certain fact is true the studies would need to be repeated?

Well, I guess that would depend on whether the medical and scientific community agrees to such an extent that no further study is necessary but I can’t see that happening. There are always improvements to be made and new knowledge that needs to be discovered. I am aware that you, as a physician, need to be able to rely on methods that have been shown to work in the past and will most likely work in the present. It’s not like someone coming into the ER on the brink of death and all the staff saying “Well, uh, we should really do some research on the accepted medical treatment that would normally be used in a case like this, because there is always that little possibility that all the previous results were obtained by chance, even though 95 percent of the patients who underwent this particular procedure survived…” and of course the poor patient has expired long ago.

And even when a medical condition isn’t an emergency, there is still that time factor: nobody wants the patient to suffer needlessly and a quick diagnosis and successful treatment is what I would imagine every physician to have as his/her goal. But I’m not a physician and I have the “luxury” of not having that time element always in my face (my real interest is herpetology; specifically lizards). So I can understand how you and I can look at similar research with different backgrounds and points of view.

When we come to the topic of this thread, though, from what I have read (and I will be happy to provide references but I can’t right now) there is no clear consensus in the medical and scientific community as to when a new human being is formed. I came to my conclusion that a new life forms at the moment of conception when I was studying biology and was not a Catholic. But now, as a Catholic, I accept Church teaching and will always submit to the authority of the Magisterium. I see no problem with that, perhaps because my conclusion and Church teaching agree. I can understand why people who feel the Church is wrong can be frustrated. When I came back to the Church I still didn’t like her teachings on homosexuality. It didn’t “feel right” to me.

But as Catholics we are required to believe what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I’ve had to think hard about some teachings but I accept them and the more I read and learn about Catholicism the more I understand why the Church teaches as she does. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and I don’t think He would lie about the gates of hell not prevailing against it.

I’m sorry - I know I’m rambling a bit. It hasn’t been a good day for me. I hope this clears things up.

God bless.

Holy Mother, please pray for all
women contemplating abortion.