When it came to the next-of-kin issue, I sided with the law, just as I am doing here. You should take better notes.
You framed the idea that the only alternative view must be as irrational as you insist the first view is.
You pre-exclude alternative views.
That's the kind of bull**** I'm talking about. That's the sort of nonsense you always pull.
You have pre-supposed that any belief system the parents have is moronic because of their choice. You don't agree with their choice, therefore they could be credentialed scientists themselves and wouldn't make any difference to you.
When you don't personally agree, you argue anything necessary to express it.
You begin with the answers you want and then compose the questions to suit.