essentially an egg

Karev, in Grey’s Anatomy (season 3) said something that struck me and stuck. He said that if a superhero lost his power, he continues to be a hero. Essentially, then, heroes are not defined by what they do (although they don’t really ‘do heroism’).

On that track, naisip ko lang, if there are parents out there who are either removed from their children, or who cease to care about their children --- is it still fitting to call them ‘parents’? Are they still essentially parents, even if their ‘pagmemeron’ does not exude parenthood in any way, shape, or form, except maybe due to the coincidental merging of their eggs and sperm to form another human being apart from and greater than themselves?

Are parents more fitting parents if their children are alive? How about if their children abandoned them? Or if the someone took their children away? Are they still parents? Or are they then reduced to ‘victims of society’ or ‘unfortunate sad beings’ who are left at sidelines when there are parades or talent shows and when the circus is in town?

When a parent roams the earth, is his/her offspring more fortunate because s/he ‘still has’ a parent? Are children with no known parents then less fortunate? Are they less beings? Should less then be expected of them?

Parents can’t be parents without any children. They simply cannot be random parents of the world. But children are still children without and/or apart from their parents. They can be random children of the world.
Being a ‘non-parent’ kills the life out of some people. But being non-children is what most kids can’t wait to be.

It’s all such a vicious cycle, I think.

It’s like the argument of the chicken or the egg. I’d rather be the egg. It’s way less harmless.

p.s. the flower has nothing to do with the topic, i just felt like posting it haha.