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.

"I have not said people with disblilities should not have children.
I have not said a couple with disablilities would be bad parents.
All I have asked is that in the circumstance in which a child is born to parents who know that that child will have to take on the reponsibility of carer and housekeeper is it selfish to have that child? "

They don't know their child will have to take on the repsonsinbilty of caring fo them.r

You know what? I had my kids because I wanted them. And without them I would be lost.

Lost of people have kids so they have family, company, help when they are older. Shoot us all.

FFS OP. Who are you?

I think that it is not so much that people have children to become carers but do not ensure that their children do not become their carers.

and how exactly should they do that???

What a nasty biggoted OP.

I take it you have no disabilities in your family? Or do you keep them in the cellar?

My BIL said before his first (DD) was born that he hoped he had a DD because he had heard (despite coming form a family of him and his DB) that daughters supposedly "look after" their parents "better" than DSs do....

You know YABU, why did you even start this, if you were serious you would have used your real name...

Op is not the only one to hold this views. I used to hear loads of stories of things said to disabled parents e.g.'what a shame you didnt have a girl, she could have looked after you', 'oh arnt your boys good, they must do so much for you'. blah blah blah.

I was at a trade show looking for useful equipment. They had an inflatable bath (before you could get baby ones in mainstream shops). I was discussing its usfulness with the supplier, explaining that I worked with disabled parents. He looked a bit puzzled then 'oh yes, it would be brilliant for helping children to bath their parents!'

FFS.

We even ADOPTED a child. Its a much easier way of getting cheap labour than having to have sex and give birth etc. Bless him, he's a little un but he's willing and stronger than he looks.

Children should be doing chores and helping I reckon. This 'idyllic childhood' thing is pretty modern. 100 years ago they'd of been working on the farm at 3 (as still happens in most of the world)

I agree completely! Regardless if the parents are disabled, able-bodied or Martian.

i think if the children end up being carers it is selfish.

chores are quire different from being the primary carer of somone with a disability - i am sure the parents of disabled children would see caring as more than 'chores'

agreed riven, children should do chores - and the chores you mention perfectly acceptable - and more.

the OP asked when those children became carers.

so if the children become carers - it is selfish imo.

if they don't - it's not

How do you define a carer anyway? If Riven can finally get her ds trained to bring cups of tea but provides for all their emotional needs, are they taking on more of a caring role than the children of an able-bodied mum who finds it difficult to connect emotionally to them or is depressed or has a drinks problem or whatever? I'm not so sure. I think it's easier to bring cups of tea.

If something happened to my legs, I would still be the main carer, because I'd still be the big strong mummy person. As Riven is.

And I am seriously interested in the concept of infants who bring themselves up until such a time that they are able to start caring for their parents. How do they get them to do that? Change their own nappies?

Have you read matilda?

I worked for a carers charity for many years and read many of the young carers stories. It's not just chores, it's their whole life. Some children not only have both parents to care for but siblings too.
It took social services 2 years to persuade one mother that her daughter should be allowed out to an activity we for which we provided a grant.She just wanted her dd there to look after her.
These children take a lot of responsibilities on very young shoulders, its not just a matter of a few extra chores, they are also more likely to be bullied at school.
I know not all parents are not like that and I am sure most yc parents want their dcs to have a childhood.

Have been trying to keep up with this discussion but it moves on a pace every time i look so sorry if am repeating something already said !

Really interesting debate as I care for ds who is registered disabled. Just want to ask Riven one point - the OP said in the title very disabled, not just disabled, so do you think there is ever a stage where someone's disability means they will never be able to care for children as an able-bodied person can that it becomes selfish to have them (forgetting the issue of becoming disabled after you have them as no-one can tell what's going to happen in the future) or do you think that everyone is always entitled to have children whatever their disability? Have tried to phrase it in a non-inflamatry(sp?) way - Genuine question!

daft op

the difference is that a carer takes responsability for another persons wellbeing.

thats a lot to put on young shoulders. and significantly more than chores.

and a lot to do with emotional support too i would guess - from young carer to cared for

This was bothering me the other day too (when I was watching comic relief) I don't really understand how things get to the situation where a 9 year old is looking after three disabled people in a very full on way, with no help.

It feels really wrong.

If I'm honest I don't understand why if the situation is that bad and no help is available (although it obviously should be) I don't understand why children like the girl christywhisty mentioned aren't in some kind of respite care themselves.

I don't think day trips or counsellors so the kids have someone to talk to are anything even remotely near enough. They need physical help in their homes.