Non sequitur. And so blatant that it makes me wonder.
First, nobody is forcing "someone else's children" to do these things and I've certainly never asked anyone to. Second, "someone else's children" are being directly compensated, so that hardly constitutes a "handout".
That's some pretty contorted reasoning you are trying to use there. It was not charity when I served in the Army and saved people's lives, and no one owes me anything for my actions.
Your adult offspring have no obligation to you, and you do not own them. Get over it. If you are depending on the charity of your children to get on in life you are pretty pathetic case, and if you think your children are obligated as much then you are outright immoral.
Please do, by all means.
First, nobody is forcing "someone else's children" to do these things and I've certainly never asked anyone to. That is irrelevant (speaking of non sequitur). You breath air, and that is the fact. Nobody says that you are forces by any human to do so, and nobody asked you to do so. But you do, and you get a benefit from it.
"someone else's children" are being directly compensated, so that hardly constitutes a "handout".
What is compensation for loss of one's life? Does the two-year pay of an army sergeant if a full compensation for his loss of life? This is not to start the debate on the issue but to show that your statement is far from obvious.
It was not charity when I served in the Army and saved people's lives, I am sure it was not, but the rest of the sentence does not follow from the premise:
and no one owes me anything for my actions.
A truly kind person helps someone out of his own beliefs and does not ask for anything in return. It is often said that the giver is himself enriched in the process. But NOBODY --- not a single minister, priest or rabbi --- would ever agree with your statement: the recipient of kindness owes something. Thanks in the very least, and then one can get into the extent of those thanks.
This too has been a self-evident truth for millennia across cultures but abandoned in ours a couple of decades ago.
Your adult offspring have no obligation to you,
You are a true product of present-day American culture. Regardless of what I believe in and say, it is YOUR intellectual obligation to notice that all of human experience --- at least since Judeo-Christian values have been accepted --- flatly contradicts your statement. It is for you to reconcile it with the facts.
To honor one's parent is actually one of the main Commandments in Judeo-Christian morality.
It is the "Greatest" generation that, for the first time in our history," started to ship elderly parents to nursing homes. It is for you to explain why prior to that elderly parents have been taken care of by their adult offspring.
You were the first to use characterizations, allow me one: your statement is not only amoral (if not immoral) -- you don't seem to have reflected on morality for a long time (or visited your church or synagogue).
Now, I do not want to broaden the discussion further and would like to offer you the main point, saved for last. When you think of value, compensation, etc, you apply criteria for evaluating transactions of private goods (I want something you have and have something you want; we make a transaction according to our valuations; it's in self-interest of both parties; NOBODY owes anybody anything after we are done). What we were discussing, and what I hinted at originally, were PUBLIC goods (those that are characterized by indivisible consumption). Your logic does not apply to these. Read up on the distinction between private, club and public goods, and then think again about these matters.
And please, take a refresher course on Ten Commandments.