>>19513008 Lb
So just to be clear, if a baby needs surgery the parents can't consent because they need to wait until the baby is of age to make that decision for themselves? Can't repair a cleft lip for instance?
Or do the parents make decisions for their baby until the child is of age to decide for themselves?
It's "mutilating" how they were born from God is it not? It's changing their body without their informed consent is it not?
Where's the line?
Not all cleft lips result in death you know. That's nonsense.
So if you support the reason for altering a childs body before they can give informed consent that's fine, but when you don't support the reason, even if the parents do, it's not?
I'm just trying to get a clear picture here.
You do know that's EXACTLY what certain religions believe.
You tried to use "informed consent" but you don't always support waiting for informed consent and believe the parents can decide. I'm trying to get an idea of where you draw the line.
Yes I am. Why wouldn't I?
Why do you get so angry when someone asks questions about statements you make? Usually only people with a narrative to push do that.
Forgot to mention, if you've been here for any length of time, how do you not know what shit the bread means? I did not shit the bread.
You're not doing a very good job of blending in kek
>>19513297
Did it ever occur to you Flynn is playing a part?
Have you thought about who "Michael" may be appearing to support in their quest for one "universal" world religion?
Just curious.
Maybe some believe in time travel. Maybe some believe Michael Flynn is THE Michael and supports the roman church in their quest for one universal world religion.
Maybe.