Michael Cox and Taylor Anderton. Their parents don't share their excitement. Normally, you would think speculating about sterilising your adult children would be on the nose, but Michael and Taylor both have Down syndrome. I copped some criticism along "don't judge" lines for tweeting about the ableism on display from Taylor and Michael's parents, and there was a lot of sympathy for their position. But days after reflecting on it, I'm still not convinced.

Their parents asked: "What will you do if you need to take the baby to the hospital in the middle of the night? Neither of you can drive!" "What are you going to do for education and housing and transport?" and "Do you think it will be hard?" None of these are bad questions to ask of prospective parents, but if this was the standard applied before everyone moved in together or got married or had children, there would be a lot more people forced to remain single and childless. A lot of parents don't have cars – and does anyone really know before they have kids just how hard it is? Sure, Michael and Taylor are young, but the tests their parents laid in front of them aren't applied to twenty-somethings who don't have a disability. If you need to be secure in terms of a home, an education and transport, that counts out most people living in the Sydney basin. Have you seen our real estate and rental prices?

Glibness aside, I feel for Taylor and Michael's parents. It was clear they feel a high degree of obligation and responsibility for their adult children, and the prospect of doing it all again for grandchildren is not appealing. But this has led to situations like telling the couple they can have just one daytime date per month, and could talk about their engagement in five years. Contrary to the parents though, I don't agree they "have to" have this much control and involvement in their children's lives. And neither does Matthew Bowden, Co-CEO of People with Disability Australia (PWD), who told me "no one parents well in complete isolation". There is an unrealistic expectation and test applied to people with disability that to be an adequate or competent parent, a person with disability must be able to fulfil this role without the supports non-disabled parents enjoy. This includes the support of their parents, siblings, extended family, friends, neighbours and community; supports from the government and tax payers (tax breaks, paid parental leave, parenting courses, midwifery supports, early childhood healthcare, child care, play groups, preschool, health promotion and parent information services). "The test applied to people with disability is discriminatory," Bowden adds. "It is not about competency, it is a smokescreen for acting on the negative societal values and attitudes towards disability."

PWD embraces the social model of disability. The social model sees "disability" as the result of "the interaction between people living with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers". This model illuminates both the assumptions and the structural means by which inequality is perpetuated against disabled people. Like feminism is to patriarchy, it is the tool for understanding how power is produced and used along an able/disabled axis. I don't believe women are inherently inferior and "naturally" destined to do unpaid care work. I don't believe disabled people are automatically incapable of parenting. These are social constructs, not reality. People with disability have a right to the policy and social supports they need: person-centred care, independent living support, and integrated services that would allow people like Taylor and Michael to make their own, ordinary, decisions about sex, living arrangements and babies. Contrast this with the medical model of disability, where disabled people are seen as objects of pity, and a burden on taxpayers because of their impairment. This all sounds very similar to the way mothers with children seeking paid parental leave are considered a "burden" on employers - because what's considered the norm is an able, non-reproductive person.