He was establishing the age of 18 years old as a reference point for the lower bound for when people are able to make adult decisions. His mention of the age of 6 after this, which your primary contention with him seemed to be about, was separate from this and was him trying to make an example of what he sees as how the medical system can be abused when there are not strict age related regulations. I think that it's clear that you disagree with him on the 18 year age restriction, but wanted to clarify that the 6 years number that he used in his example didn't have any significance in its specificity, but was just some number between 0-17.
Would you say that when I went back to the initial quote (the 18 year age restriction) twice, it was not clear that I wanted to talk about the 18 year age restriction?
I really don't care about the 6. My point about the 6 was that when I disagreed with 18, they went down to 6 (presumably because that's easier to defend). But that is just diverting my point. My point was about the 18, and I kept coming back to the 18. They kept coming back to 6, that's right, but as a way to redirect the discussion (I started it, it's my right to say where I was going, not theirs).
