Subject:
|
Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:48:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > > This raises an interesting question. Is there ever an obligation for
> > > children to care for their elderly parents.
> >
> > Not unless the child, as an adult, opts into such an obligation. I stand firm
> > on the parental contract being completely one sided.
>
> I'm not convinced yet. I guess part of the difference is that you see an
> absolute obligation to the child, yet you also acknowledge that the
> absolute requirement is tempered by the parent's resources, and doesn't
> even demand every bit of the parent's resources...It seems to me that either
> you can say "I can't provide that," or you have to spend all your
> resources providing it.
But you're just defining what the parents owe with an absolute dollar value,
while I'm not. I think parents owe time and spending power and even a
particular style (or one of several, more like) of parenting. But there is no
single good that I'm pointing to and saying that no matter what, this is owed.
Parents who can't afford a normal array of food for the kitchen table, do not
_owe_ their kids as much in the way of toys as I _owe_ my kids. Why is it a
problem for you that the debt/responsibility isn't defined in absolute terms?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
