mustachioed_badass_42
Well-known member
I feel it is unfair if a parent equates their child to a parasite on a regular basis. A parasite is an organism that invades the body of another organism and utilises all its nutrients for its own benefit. In case of a parent-child relationship, the parent themselves chose to give birth to the child, so I feel that the parent voluntarily signed up for all the responsibilities that come along with it. If the child is an adult still living off his parents' money, then maybe it is a bit justified (although I still wouldn't endorse it); but to call a child a 'parasite' frequently right from when he is just six years old and cannot provide for himself by any means, feels not only harmful for the child, but also factually incorrect. I feel it is unfair to expect a child to provide for himself from right after he is born; at such young ages, I feel it is expected that the parent themselves must do the providing and protecting. So I don't think that the parent is doing any great favour by providing food, clothing and shelter to the child, it is just what they should be doing. Hence, I also don't think that a parent-child relationship is ever equivalent to parasitism. In a case of parasitism, the host organism has no choice and it just boils down to a battle of power between the parasite and the host's immune system. But in case of a parent, they chose to give birth themselves, and therefore consented to the responsibilities it brings.
As always, I can be wrong about this, and would like to hear others' thoughts; but, for some reason, such behaviour just doesn't sit right with me
As always, I can be wrong about this, and would like to hear others' thoughts; but, for some reason, such behaviour just doesn't sit right with me
Last edited: