It doesn't make sense to me not to discuss specifics. The restrictions of rights / privileges are generally intended to ensure the welfare either of the public, or the individual with MI. Thus, my interest lies in whether the laws are truly necessary, whether they might accomplish that intended goal, and whether the laws place an absolutely onerous burden on the individual.

Legally blind individuals are barred from driving in most states. It is not their "fault" that they are legally blind, and in most parts of the US, it can be restrictive to build a life when you can't drive. Some legally blind people have worse vision than others, and studies suggest that under certain very limited conditions (daylight & under a certain speed), some legally blind individuals might be able to drive safely. But do I think that it's best for the safety of all involved that all legally blind individuals be banned from driving? Yes, I do. Do I think that it would be fair if legally blind individuals were not allowed to leave their homes, or have children, or vote? No, because those things are not necessary for anyone's welfare.

I do understand the broader point that's being made. I just don't agree philosophically with separating the general from the specific.