Weakening English's argument

While recognizing my Americanized perspective, I would still favor Jane English’s opinion over Chenyang Li’s in respect to familial piety. I think that adding a sense of owing or obligation to the child/parent relationship seems perverse in a way. I much prefer English’s sense of friendship or mutual love in response to the relationship. She advocates that a parent does what they do for their child based off of an unconditional love and the child does the same, which seems the ideal relationship. However, I do recognize that this obviously isn’t the case in many situations. I disagree and find issue with English’s opinion that one sibling would have a greater sense of obligation if they were financially stable. I do not believe resources should determine a sense of greater or lesser responsibility. I think this point of her piece contradicts the entire central message of the article, in which the relationship between the parents and children should be unconditional and not obligation centered. This would imply that siblings feel the same relationship responsibility depending on if they were given the same amount of love and attention and not due to obligation regarding resources or not. The contradiction lowers the impact of her opinion and argument.