Subject:
|
Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:54:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
598 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> 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?
I guess we're getting into the nitty gritty details of what is owed. I
don't think I'm looking for absolutes (in fact I think I want to avoid
them). I think part of what I'm looking for is how do we judge (I think
we have to have some basis for judgement, at least if we at all hold
that there are times when it is reasonable to demand a parent give up
responsibility for their child).
Is there some minimum that is owed? I agree with you that what is owed
does depend on the resources of the parents (though I don't think Bill
Gates owes his children Mercedes or BMWs when they turn 16 for example,
but he probably does owe them more than my parents owed me). I'm
inclined to think that the minimum owed to a child is sufficiently
nutritious food, some minimal level of healthcare, and some minimal
standard of clothing and housing. If a parent can't provide this, then I
feel they shouldn't be choosing to have a child. On the other hand, this
minimum doesn't extend to extraordinary health care. My question is what
about health care in the middle? Do you owe your kid braces before you
can have a BMW for yourself (I'd like to think that a good parent would
choose the braces, but is that a must?)?
Hmm, thinking of differing wealth levels, I think there is a point of
semi-independance where the parents can demand something in return for
some of what they give. For example, I think it is reasonable that a
parent who is able does owe their kids at least some support for
college, but I also think they can demand a certain minimal performance.
In contrast, I think someone who can afford it does owe at least some
level of pre-school (or homeschool equivalent, as opposed to just
babysitting), but can't demand much in the way of performance from the
child (but the parents do owe it to the child to work with the child to
make sure the child wants what they are getting from the pre-school).
Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
