# data[].attributes.body
Maybe there is one point we have to clarify is that  what we say in the last two sentence means that in most of the cases, parents have a position slightly higher than children and children especially for kids. Of course, there are parents prefer treating their children as kids, that will be similar to friendship. Also, we agree with some  of you on the point that children are caring their parents when they grow up due to love but not repaying them.
Base on Sam's opinion, perhaps we can say that the parent-child relationship is different in different countries under different culture. Friendship can be used in describing the relationship in Western countries but not Asian countries.
Also, Janice mentioned one difference between friendship and family is that most of us will be closer and value more on parents than friends and we agree with this view point.

# data[].attributes.body
In Western society, it is very common that parents and their children have a friendship relationship. It is almost cultural that once you are legally an adult you are no longer obligated to receive any support (financially) under the law. Parents do not expect a repayment of their upbringing, but rather expect the adult son/daughter to move out and live as any independent adult would live, by supporting themselves. This show us that there is no debt owed to both parties and once an adult the relationship between parents and their children are closer to of friends status. This is very different from the Asian or Chinese culture specifically. It is expected by parents and their children are almost obligated to repay their parents financially when able in the future.

-Sam 31/10

# data[].attributes.body
I'm not sure what you mean by the final two sentences? I don't think children should always listen to their parents.. I don't think you are obliged to just like how you are not obliged to repay your parents although the gesture is favorable.

-Sam 31/10

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree with you entirely on the very last statement. I agree with English, love can be expressed to both friends and parents equally. Therefore, friendship provides an appropriate explanation for the moral relation between adult children and their parents. The act of love, if genuine, has no degrees. There is no more or less "love", therefore the love expressed to friends also equal to the love expressed to parents. It is not measured in both and any cases.

-Sam 31/10

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the concept of and actions out of "love", parents voluntarily make sacrifices for their children. The children are not in debt of the sacrifices made. They have a choice, but not obligated to return the favor, the gestures were out of love, not to be owed.

-Sam 31/10

# data[].attributes.body
Even though children did not request to be born, but for me, once you're come to this world, it's you're responsibility to be thankful that you are alive, because you have your own mind and thoughts. You can have your own dream, decision, emotion, etc. If our parents didn't give birth to us, we are literally nothing. That's why I think 'children didn't request to be born' shouldn't even be an argument for children to not fulfill their filial obligation.

-Cherry 30/10

# data[].attributes.body
I partly agree with English that friendship properly explains the relationship between parents and children, because of their love. By using friendship to describe the relationship, it shows that it is primarily base on love from the bottom of their heart. And both sides should have mutual respect, parents should not feel like they have more power than children and disrespect them.

-Cherry 30/10

# data[].attributes.body
However, even though I agree friendship quite properly explains the parent-children relationship, I don't think that the relationship should be totally founded by friendship.Children should not treat parents completely as friends and without feeling obligated and thankful at the same time. Even though most of the children love and respect their parents, there are still some that do not feel that same. Without feeling obligated, those people won't even bother to care their parents.

-Cherry 30/10

# data[].attributes.body
I do think that the moral relation between adult children with their parents and friendship are very similar because both relationships are not afraid of sacrificing for each other. They both do not feel the need to ever repay because they are responsible friends/children. They do not feel the need to fulfill certain level of responsibility in the mentioned relationships because they are doing it out of wants and that they 100% do not mind providing for their friends or parents.
However, I do have to admit that the priority should be put on parents instead of friends. Although friends are important but parents are of utmost importance because everyone has a family (biologically explanatory) and friends are of people you meet in daily life.

-Janice (20/10)

# data[].attributes.body
Friendship is the epitome of filial obligation because a friendly and loving relationship is created without any blood relations. It is purely out of having a desirable relationship with someone you wouldn't mind not benefitting from because the relationship itself is an enjoyable experience.

-Janice (20/10)

# data[].attributes.body
I think friendship and relationship with parents are very similar. It is not done on a debt basis but voluntarily. Friendship is a mutual feeling between two friends, where they both value the relationship more than the benefits they can receive from it. For example, friends often buy each other dinner, not because they want to be treated next time, but they want to show love and care to one and other. With the idea of "return" in friendship, people may easily get tired of it and choose to be alone with no friends. The idea of "return" should not exist in friendships. There can be cases where one friend never returns any favor but the friendship is still real and genuine.

-Janice (20/10)

# data[].attributes.body
It struck me when reading :children did not request to be born". Children should not feel obliged to provide for their parents but instead they should do it out of love, out of filial piety. By using the term "owe to", it will create a rather materialistic relationship between parents and children, as if parents are going to expect to receive something from the children in the future because of everything they provided the children when they were younger. Children should provide out of their own wants and not out of stress of obligation.

-Janice (20/10)

# data[].attributes.body
1.What does English mean when she uses the term "owe to”? Why does English believe that the relationship between parents and their adult children cannot be explain in virtue of an owing relation?

From English, the term "owe to" means when you call someone you do not know or barely know to do something for you, you will have the moral obligation to payback as you owe to the person who help you. For instance, for neighborhood who is barely know each other, when A asks B to help him to take mail when he is gone for a month's vacation, B agrees. If, subsequently, B asks A to do the same thing for her, A has the moral obligation to agree as A owe to B.
However, in English's opinion, the term "owe to" cannot be used in describing the relationship between parents and their adult children, because their children did not request to be born. Moreover, what parents do to their children are merely out of love. She believes that a love relationship is not the case of "debt".

2.Please explain the conceptual difference between "mutuality” and "reciprocity.” Why does English think that friendship is the correct foundation for filial obligation?

The conceptual difference between "mutuality" and "reciprocity" is that  "mutuality" values the relationship of people. People are motivated by love and they do not want to gain any extra benefits from others.
However, "reciprocity" considers about the quantity of benefits. People would care about whether the action is equal and fair for them and others.
In the essay, it has mentioned that "Friends are motivated by love rather than by the prospect of repayment." English thinks that, for friendship, people would not only care about the "return" in the future. They would behave because of the relationship of love. Using this way for filial obligation can maintain the relationship by showing the love. However, if we replace the idea of duty instead of using friendship for filial obligation, it will not exist for long time as we would count the quantity of "return". The relationship may be destroyed easily at last. Therefore, friendship is the correct foundation for filial obligation.

3.Do you agree with English? Do you think that friendship provides an appropriate explanation for the moral relation between adult children and their parents?

To a large extent, we agree with English. What parents do for their children are voluntary sacrifices, which is an expression of love. Therefore, when their children grow up, the reason of them  treating their parents with filial respect is not  repaying them but to show their love. Just like friendship, friends will do each other a favor without measuring.
However, friendship cannot totally explain the parent-child relationship. Since friends share the same position but parents and children are not at the same position in the family hierarchy. Children should always listen to their parents, which is different from friendship.