Responsibility is probably a socio cultural construct here. My perspective is one absolutely does have responsibility to their parents (exceptional circumstances aside), but I have noticed that as one of the major differences between north America and where I grew up (on both sides of the life equation mind you: where I was born kids weren't supposed to get jobs in high school or pay rent until at least out of university,and generally stay in their family home until they're ready to start their own family. Whereas my grade 12 in Minnesota, everybody was looking to get as far away from their parents for university as humanly possible, and those that didn't had to start paying in - whether rent or car insurance or something. So it feels like the social contract is simply different, even if it feels cold to me :)
Responsibility is always socially constructed. The idea that one person can “owe” another doesn’t exist without people. It’s not a law of nature.
That said, we have drifted very far from the nasty, brutish, and short version of prehistoric society, where your parents might be some of the main people you ever interacted with. Taking care of your parents in that context is quite obvious, because when you were helpless they took care of you, and otherwise no one will take care of them.
> Taking care of your parents in that context is quite obvious, because when you were helpless they took care of you
Well, let's be clear, that is far from universally true.
There's also degrees of care.
I absolutely see where the GP is coming from: my parents chose to have me, I didn't choose to have them. So why would I owe them for simply living up to the responsibilities they chose to take on?
Now, for amazing, supportive parents, the child will want to support and care for their parents when the time comes.
But not everyone has good parents, and I do not believe a child has a responsibility to care for an absent, abusive, or otherwise bad parent simply by dint of genetics.
