Blood Doesn't Make Obligations, Individuals Aren't Indentured To Family By Their Birth.

We don't live in 17th century Europe. The Elizabethan Poor Laws do not exist in 21st century America and should not exist anywhere in the world. When narrowing the focus to children under the age of 21, the legal, developmental, and social consensus becomes even more absolute: minors and young adults under 21 do not have legal or financial obligations to care for parents or other family members. Trying to force family-blood obligations is feudal, it's tribal, it's slave-master mentality.

Enmeshment is wrong on many levels. Enmeshment is a dysfunctional relationship pattern characterized by blurred boundaries, emotional over-dependence, and a loss of personal identity, where individual autonomy is sacrificed and violated for the sake of the collective. This lack of separation often leads to toxic codependency, creating deep feelings of guilt, hatred, anger, or shame when individuals attempt to act independently or set and enforce boundaries.

The logic doesn't change when the child becomes an adult. The obligation was never theirs to begin with. However, some states are forcing adult children to financially care for parents, claiming the parents took care of the child before the child could do so on their own. This ignores that the child didn't ask to come into the world, and it is every parent's obligation to financially care for the child they chose to bring into the world. However, that's the entitlement humanity has and imposes. Like good job, you brought more labor to exploit into this world, so we're gonna reward you by enforcing them to take care of you, to remind them they're slaves to the system, which includes the cattle that brought them into existence. 

If you're going to flip that logic and make the child responsible in a trade-off, then the adult child should be allowed to take the parent out of the world as part of filial law, giving adult children the same type of choice the parent had when the parent chose to bring someone in without asking for permission. So the adult child should be allowed to take somebody out without asking for permission, and I sincerely mean that as a policy suggestion. It's the same logic. Filial responsibility laws are wage masters pushing responsibilities onto the slaves. In this case, the masters become both the state and the parent or parents.

Never move to states like Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Enforcement varies, but the law on the books is the law on the books, and those laws violate individual liberties and human sovereignty.

Call me cold or heartless, but it should be up to the individual, not imposed on them. You bring someone into the world, just like when you take vows to marry someone, you're choosing to do so. And just like prenups are around to stop marital obligations, we have ways to stop unwanted pregnancies, and there's even reference in the Bible to a miscarriage potion: Numbers 5:11-31, the Ordeal of the Bitter Water, meaning those who invoke God against it cannot claim their own scripture is silent on the matter. The text itself explains how to terminate a pregnancy. This isn't new, and bringing someone into the world strictly to make them care for you or other family members when old and sick is slave-master logic, and nothing will change my mind otherwise.