i do not understand this. how is it meaningful to talk about self interest before there is a self? once i am born and my self exists it is clear to me that i am thankful for my existence. but if the fetus (that turned out to be me) was aborted, then there seems no meaning in talking about my happiness or regrets because there is no "me" and there never will be.
i do however see the difference between the "disabilities are socially constituted (*)" (if i may so summarize) position and the position of the religious right. the former, if i may, seems to hold that we see disabilities as a problem, both as a society and as individuals (and as the individuals "suffering" the disability) because we (as a whole) subscribe to a particular contingent view of the world and of human beings, which leads us to classify a person's qualities as "problems", and various technologies either accelerate the problematic nature of the person's condition (the graphic web, as opposed to earlier attempts like gopher, wais, and even early html itself, perhaps makes blindness more of a "problem" or "disadvantage" than it used to be) or contribute further to the "slippery slope" leading away from acknowledging the "harmful worldview" that is the cause of the problem.
i do not want to get heideggery and suggest that it is the technological worldview itself that is the problem, but if one were to respond that more technology will solve the problems (to use my own example above: the graphic web causes greater good than harm and newer translation technologies will ease the "problems" of the blind), that case remains to be made, and the foundation on which it is constructed would be interesting/revealing.
in general, i am not convinced merely by the invocation of the "slippery slope" argument (and as someone pointed out, they do seem to reduce to a primitivist position), so i must add that imho the opposing argument too remains incomplete.
--ravi
(*) i am not very up to date on these terminologies. i used to understand what "social construction" meant, but i believe that is a bad phrase now and its use equates to discredited irrational french sociologists (or some such), and i hope i am using the term "socially constituted" in an appropriate sense.