> Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs

I have never heard anyone be this reductionistic and be serious. that's not at all what the conversation is about.

> Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for having 1% (or 10% or 0.001%, anything above 0%) of the population disabled?

Pretty much all the elderly are disabled. I guess you're using disabled to refer to the young ones? Not all of us have been disabled since birth, either, there's accidents and diseases.

No, I think the question isn't "are we good for society?" The question is "are we allowed to exist, and can we have rights?"

I'm disabled. I'm extremely talented, I can still work, and I've contributed a lot at work, but I might not be able to keep my job in another five years. I'm still happy to have been born.

My mom was disabled (with a different disorder than me), and my grandfather too (with multiple things.) We'd have been euthanized in Nazi Germany for sure.

Are ethicists okay with me having bio-kids, who might possibly inherit my bad genes? I don't give a shit. Come at me, try and stop me. If I have to fight an ableist world to thrive and reproduce, that just makes me stronger than the abled people who can afford to be lazy.