The issues being dealt with in this thread are way deeper than tenancy law.
So what happens if this 30 year old “child” gets a woman pregnant? Does he have to take care of the child? In his parents’ house? Are they responsible for this grandchild?
Man, this takes “failure to launch” to a whole new level.
Needless to say, I think the idea is insane from the get-go. The second that kid becomes a legal adult the parents have, and ought to have the right and ability to kick them to the curb in a heartbeat.
What, walrus, you think that you’re off the hook just because you’re dead? You’re still the person who spawned that miserable git, so you still have to take care of him. Drag your lazy ass out of your coffin and order him a pizza, already!
If the problem is lack of consent to existence, how about if we make voluntary euthanasia freely available to anyone when they reach the age of majority? Would that address the injustice that you perceive?
Am I being…Poe’s Law’d?
There a flaw in the logic here somewhere …
However, if we accept your premise, that parents are responsible for caring and providing for their children, the obligation is met by teaching them to care and provide for themselves.
Okay, I owe you food, shelter and a minimal sense of security.
However, my house, my rules. Now go to your room, and no internet for you.
Got a problem with that? Move out.
No, look at some of the OP’s other threads. It’s the same baby, wrapped up in new clothes.
Not living at home with your parents in your 30s it won’t!
Speaking of babies, is anybody else getting the feeling that this some sort of argument from absurdity for/against abortion? With the whole ‘consent’ and ‘obligation’ thing and all?
By a straight analogy I’d say it was an argument from absurdity in favor of abortion - it would obviously be dumb to force parents to keep adult children, so it’s thus dumb to make them keep fetuses. However there’s such a huge and obvious flaw with that analogy that I’m wondering if its supposed to be a parody of an argument for absurdity and thus, via double negation, an argument against abortion.
I’m so confused.
marcus flavius:
I think you’re conflating caring about someone and caring for someone.
Being willing to help, and being willing to help in exactly the way that’s requested, are also not the same thing.
Some parents are worthless assholes - I get that. But exactly what makes someone qualify as the worthless-asshole parent is not yet clear to you.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. We were not (and could not have been) consulted before our births as to whether we wanted to be brought into this world, into our particular circumstances, to being precisely what we are. We had absolutely no say in any of these matters. So in light of these facts, it seems to be thoughtless and cruel to kick your offspring onto the streets at any age.
I’m not opposed to the concept of voluntary euthanasia. But no, to the second part of your question.
If I were a parent, I would be receptive to having an adult child live with me indefinitely, even if they were able-bodied and -minded. This is a tough world. Lots of people would be a lot better off financially if their parents hadn’t pushed them out in the cruel, cold world at the arbitrary age of 18. Unfortunately a lot of parents have the “push 'em out the door at 18” mentality, but then wonder why their offspring are crippled by debt and the poor choices that debt contributes to.
However, I don’t believe in “no strings attached” anything. If you’re living under my roof, you live with my rules–even if those rules are crazy. And if you can’t live under those rules, I should be able to kick you out.
I think this thread would be more substantive if the OP framed the debate differently by asking whether parents have an ethical or moral obligation to provide basic care for their adult children well into adulthood. Can someone still be a good parent and refuse to let their 25-year-old move in with them, even if the 25-year-old is a decent person who is “adulting” the best way they know how? My reflex is to find such a parent pretty heartless (provided they at least have a couch or a floor to sleep on). But perhaps other people feel like they would have to know certain things (just how “decent” is the adult child and just how hard have they tried to “adult”) before they judge the parents too harshly.
I don’t think there is much of a debate about whether it should be illegal to kick out your adult kids, though. That’s bananas.
The point is; to not have to kick them out. You raise them, teach them and prepare them for the big ol’ world. Then they leave you and go to college or the military. You help if you can. You visit them, they visit you. They get married. They bring the grand kids around. And hopefully when you’re old and unable to care for yourself they will step up and help you.
I don’t think it should be illegal, but parents should as objectively as possible analyze the situation and do what’s best for their kids. If you know you’re crappy parenting is the reason they can’t make it in the real world, you need to continue to take care of them until they can. If you’ve been a good parent and they just don’t wanna, then like any good mother bird they need to be kicked out of the nest.
A common thing I’m seeing nowadays is endless schooling. It’s easy to get parents to let you stay with them as long as you’re in school. Except that’s BS in many cases, because half the time the kids don’t actually have a passion for becoming a lawyer or doctor or corporate CEO so don’t need 8 years of post graduate study. Once you have a BA, you can make it quite well on your own and pursue more advanced degrees in your spare time with your spare money. Get the F out.
Life is thoughtless and cruel. Get used to it.
But if the issue is consent, the adult child, being able to elect to opt out of living and choosing not to, is now “consenting” to life. If they don’t consent, they can sign up for euthanasia.
Right - the second the kid becomes a legal adult who is perceived by the law as being able to make decisions for himself, he becomes solely responsible for his own consent to be alive. The parents may have been responsible for this consent prior to the child being legally allowed to make decisions for himself, but the second the kid gains the right to legally choose to blow his own brains out, the parents aren’t responsible for his continuing life at all.
Unless, of course, the kid doesn’t become a legal adult, which control over his own decisions. In which case clearly the parents do retain responsibility, and can also totally enslave him. With chains.
“To your room young man! Under my roof you make shoes, until I tell you to stop! Which I never will!!”