Poll of the Day > Should a parent always support their child?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Take for example a fully grown child (we'll say 30 years old) whos making decisions that goes against the beliefs/ideas of the parents? Should the parents sit there and still cuddle the child or are they free to say you're your own person good luck we did our job go.

Should a parent always support their child?

No.

teddy241 posted...

Should the parents sit there and still cuddle the child or are they free to say you're your own person good luck we did our job go.

There are way too many variables to consider to offer up a blanket answer to this. But based on your topic title? Simply, no. A parent is obligated to provide for their child until they can reasonably provide for themselves. If they feel they cannot provide for them, or flat out refuse to, hopefully they opt for abortion, or adoption.

Same goes for the reverse. A person is not required to pledge undying fealty to their parents. If your relationship with your parents is strained and difficult, you may be better off cutting them out of your life.

Relationships are far too complicated and divergent to put into one giant nutshell and provide an answer that will suffice across the board.

In short, it depends.

This sounds like something that needs disambiguation and context

Depends on the mental and physical health of the 30 year old.

Lokarin posted...

This sounds like something that needs disambiguation and context

Lokarin posted...

This sounds like something that needs disambiguation and context

Exactly this

Good responses

I think they should always support their child. That said, I dont think blindly agreeing with them is support

parents should always give their child a generous benefit of the doubt

My mom doesn't vidya game but she supports my vidya gaming

Yea the question is way too broad.

Should a parent support a child for being themselves (in terms of fashion, career, gender identity, sexuality, etc.)? Absolutely. For as much as a child grows, I think its important for parents to grow and understand things they may not get for the sake of their kid.

In a monetary sense? The obligation is up until 18, after that its totally up to each parent and if they want to or are able to in the first place.

Should a parent tolerate an abusive adult child? No, I dont think so, but yet again, its just not that simple and some people define abuse as not getting what they want which is important to point out in a less than ideal parent/child relationship.

LinkPizza posted...

I think they should always support their child. That said, I dont think blindly agreeing with them is support

This seems like a good place to start, unless the child is actively abusing them (don't support your abusers, no matter what their relationship is to you). "Support," however, can mean a very wide range of things and does not have to involve categorically giving them whatever they need/want. Parents should put in some effort to be supportive, but placing reasonable boundaries on that effort is also necessary.

no

There's a whole bunch of factors.

As long as what they are doing/believing isn't maliciously harming others, you can at least tolerate it.

If they're doing something harmful to their own health, and are struggling to overcome it then suppport and possibly intervention might be needed.

If they've fallen on hard times then there's nothing wrong with family lending a helping hand.

If they're violent/cruel/dangerous to others then you can say enough is enough.

teddy241 posted...

Should a parent always support their child?

No.

No.

But sometimes - or even often - supporting them; sure.

Based on the context, no. The best they should do is inform them of the consequences. At that age, a person should have enough awareness to make inteligent choices and understand what it meanst to be accountable for the consequences of those choices.