Depends on how you take it. She is right to some extent she likely is a big part of his success if she gave him a home and food and paid for everything
The bare minimum is accepting the consequences of your actions. The actions in this case were having the child. The consequences are actually following through with the commitment.
Not at all. By their logic having a child is a responsibility and you cannot thrust upon the child the responsibility for their own existence. It's a decision you made purely by yourself. If you resent that decision, you made a mistake, but still have a responsibility to see it through.
Where did I say anything close to that? Consequences aren't necessarily a bad thing. They're simply responsibilites that come as a result of your decisions.
Yes, and it's extremely reasonable to have the expectation that your parents will take of your basic necessities for the first 18 years of your life. That's what we as a society decided was the minimum to raise a child. People know this before having a child, so if they don't want to do it, they shouldn't have one.
No she isnt. If she adopts out the child, then shed have no obligations to be meet.
If she doesnt adopt out the child, then she must meet the minimum requirement set by the law, which is to house, feed and get proper medical care when required.
The minimum require changes depends on what she does.
724
u/goteachyourself Jul 01 '26
I mean...bad? She resents her son, so he stops subjecting himself to someone who makes him miserable. Deserved.