AITAH for not feeling sorry for my homeless parents and not offering my house for them to stay or help?

Today's AITA post brings us a truly gut-wrenching dilemma that forces us to confront the very definition of family obligation. Our Original Poster (OP) finds themselves in an unenviable position, facing a request from their biological parents, a request that carries a heavy emotional weight given their shared, troubled past. It's a tale that challenges our innate empathy.

The story unpacks layers of neglect and abandonment, culminating in a situation where the parents are now homeless and seeking refuge. But what happens when the child they neglected is now in a position of comfort and has to decide whether to extend a hand? Is blood truly thicker than water, or are some bridges permanently burned? Let's dive into this complex narrative.

"AITAH for not feeling sorry for my homeless parents and not offering my house for them to stay or help?"

This situation forces us to examine the intricate dynamics of familial responsibility. On one hand, there's a widely held societal expectation that children, especially once they are established, should care for their aging or struggling parents. This is often rooted in cultural norms and the idea of reciprocity, where parents provide for children, and children eventually return that care.

However, this expectation becomes incredibly fraught when the parental relationship was severely broken, as described by our OP. The concept of 'filial duty' often presumes a baseline of adequate parenting – a nurturing environment, provision of basic needs, and emotional support. When these foundational elements are absent, and replaced by neglect or abuse, the traditional reciprocal obligation becomes highly questionable.

The OP's lack of emotion, while jarring to some, is a very real and understandable response to prolonged trauma and emotional abandonment. It's a protective mechanism. To expect immediate empathy or altruism from someone who has spent their formative years in survival mode, due to the very people now seeking help, is to ignore the lasting impact of their past experiences.

Furthermore, there's the critical distinction between biological relation and genuine family. For many, 'family' is defined by love, support, and mutual respect, not just shared DNA. If the OP's parents never fulfilled their role, it's difficult to argue that the OP is morally obligated to step into a role of savior now, especially if it jeopardizes their hard-won peace and stability.

The Internet Weighs In: Is Blood Thicker Than Water, Even After Years of Neglect?

As expected, the comments section for this story was a torrent of strong opinions, largely siding with the Original Poster. The overwhelming sentiment echoed the idea that parental responsibility isn't a one-way street, and parents who fail their children significantly forfeit claims to future support. Many users shared similar experiences, emphasizing the lasting trauma of neglect and the right to protect one's peace.

However, a smaller contingent did offer a more nuanced view, acknowledging the OP's past but questioning if there isn't *any* room for compassion or minimal assistance, even if not directly providing housing. These comments often highlighted the cyclical nature of addiction or the idea of breaking the cycle of bitterness. Still, the dominant voice was clear: the OP owes nothing.

Ultimately, this story serves as a powerful reminder that family relationships are complex and deeply personal. While society often dictates certain obligations, the weight of past actions cannot be ignored. The OP's journey from neglect to stability is a testament to their resilience, and their decision to protect that hard-won peace, even at the cost of severing ties with their biological parents, is a valid and understandable choice. It challenges us to consider what true family means and where our obligations truly lie.