to think that if a couple are both very disabled that they are very selfish to have children

[selfishIMHO]

who end up being their carers?
I understand that some people become ill/disabled or have accidents. But if I had a dibilitating disease and my husband had something chronic too I would npt have children that I could not give a good life to. A life that would mean from a young age they do most if not all of the housework and help me get dressed, wash etc. It's just wrong. Those poor children with the weight of the world on their shoulders.
Having children is not a right.

agree 100% with Marla and Riven

ahh I see Riven has posted what I was about to say.

Perhaps if the government did more to properly support adults with disabilities then the "need" for child carers would be vastly reduced.

agree with Divineintervention

AIBU to think that if someone is very very bigoted and pig ignorant, then they are very selfish to have children?

I understand that some people may be too thick and unaware to realise that they are very stupid. But from a young age, their children would have to suffer the fact that they have a fuckwit for a parent. Poor children with that weight on their shoulders.

agree with Riven too, I don't get on comic relief why the children end up being the sole carers when obviously when they were too young to care for their parents someone must have done the caring

I take it this is a question after watching Red Nose Day stuff.

I can see your point, however who is in charge and decides what disease rules you out of being a parent? If you get struck down with something should your children be removed and placed with healthy parents?

Be prepared for one hell of a roasting, your post is highly inflamatory and insulting to many.

but why the age of 9? Where did that figure pop into it all? Who was doing the housework before the child hit 9 years old??

on a slightly cynical note ,all these child carers are saving the country a small fortune ,so perhaps we should be forcing the disabled to concieve

compo - perhaps those parents acquired their disability after the children were born so they'd had no need for support earlier?

not just child carers saving the government millions, adult carers too that aren't recognised as such.

£57billion a year unpaid carers (adults and children) save the government (Carers UK 2006)

but taxes would have to go up to pay that 57 million

this is the most offencive thread ive seen on mn. riven im with you on this.

Okay the OP was provocative, but I draw the line at offensive. I do not think people with a disablility do not make great parents at all, I do not think people with a disbability should not have children. I think this society has a place for all types and variety of parent.
What I am asking is about the right to have children no matter what, in circumstances that we know to be hard for children. Not because society is shitty toward people with disabilities or the unjust nature of how all people are made to feel unequal and not provided for. But simply if you know you cannot care physically and mentally for a child and the role of the carer is put upon that child, is it selfish?

billion compo not million - that's a hell of a lot of money "saved" by the government each year because of those carers (approx 6 million of them) . Of course some of that money could, and indeed should, be ploughed back into supporting those carers - but of course it doesn't - and so we end up with views of those of the OP..............

very good points Riven

I'm profoundly deaf..my poor child tells me when the doorbell has rung or the microwave has stopped...call the SS...I shouldn't have had a child...the pressure on him..

!!!!

the 9yo (I think) who was filmed for Comic Relief and cares for three people with disabilities - both parents and a little brother was clearly a child who has had to take on far too much responsibility. Have to admit the OP's question did float past my mind. BUT the real issue surely is what on earth are SS doing to support the family?

Problem with CR is it shows vulnerable people but ignores these questions. That child is entitled to an assessment of his needs by SS, as are each of his parents and his brothers. Has that been done? If not, why not? And if so, why on earth is he being left to shoulder this burden on his own?

Going to a centre for child carers funded by Comic Relief is clearly giving the poor kid a bit of a break. But it is not enough. The statutory authorities should be pulling THEIR weight.

sorry FAQ, I'm getting confused
I find it hard to express my opinion because obv it's such an emotive issue
My best friend has a disabled sister. She said that her and her parents have managed to get her on the pill as she is sexually active. She said if they could they would opt to get her sterilised because if she ever got pregnant the baby would be taken into carer as soon as it was born