@Blondesjon
As @whitenoise said, it is about what I understand as owing.
My understanding of owing matches that of whitenoise, namely to have a debt with someone that can someone can claim, even against your will, that is also dependent on the conscious acceptance by the receipient with the option of rejection.
And under this definition, my clear stance is no, children do not owe their parents.
If someone deposits a milliard Euro on your bank account and tells you that if you reject it, he will kill you (a situation where you can not reasonably reject), would you owe this person something in the above sense?
Owing as in “having a sense of obligation or gratitude towards your parents” (which is entirely subjective) is a completely different matter.
If you want to care for your parents to reciprocate for their care for you, because you love them, etc., then that is fine. I would encourage this behaviour, because it benefits society. But it is optional, not mandatory.
Next thing, abortion.
I am being pro choice despite my view that parents owe their children for forcing existence on them.
In fact, I am not exactly a fan of “convenience abortions”, nor am I supportive of late term abortions without medical reasons.
I am of the opinion that abortion should only become an option in cases of potential mental or physical damage to the mother or severe deformations/disabilities of the future child.
I am pro choice in the sense that I acknowledge the right of the mother to choose an abortion in these cases.
I do not want take a stance on abortions outside of these reasons since it is in a very grey grey zone (when is a fetus considered human, when is an abortion appropriate, the right of the mother to govern her own body, etc.).
Next point, death penalty.
I think you are skewing the argument.
I is not about a criminal deserving the death penalty, but about a criminal deserving punishment. The death penalty is a point on the scale of severety of punishment and thus subject to a certain kind of arbitrariness.
Make no mistake. I am in favour of criminals receiving punishment, they made a conscious choice to do something illegal and thus accepted the possible repercussions while having the option of rejection by not committingthe crime.
The reason I oppose the death penalty is that the judicial process is inherently imperfect. It can not prove to 100% that the convict is in fact guilty.
The death penalty means that almost invariably, innocent people will be executed.
The other reason is that the death penalty invariably means that some people are being given the power to decide over life and death of a person in a situation that is not in a grey zone of the above mentioned abortion scenario (a convict is definitely considered a human, and can never be dangerous enough to exclude permanent imprisonment/rehabilitation from the list of options.)