There is nothing inherently morally wrong with being a life long medical patient — unless you view illness as a moral failing and view disabled and chronically ill people as inherently undesirable and as if their lives are incapable of being "complete" due to their conditions.
There is nothing inherently morally wrong with having an addiction — unless you view addiction as a personal moral failing and view addicts as inherently undesirable and as if their lives are incapable of being "complete" due to their condition.
There is nothing inherently wrong with desiring autonomy over your body and expression in a way that deviates from the norm — unless you view deviance from the norm as a moral failing and view deviant people as inherently undesirable and as if their lives are incapable of being "complete" due to their deviation from the norm.
And even then... what does a "complete" life entail? Does that mean living within one rigid idea of what a life is? Or does it mean living in a way that grants someone the most autonomy? Why do you think that way? Is it because your were raised that way? Who has reaffirmed that belief in your life? Why do they think that way? Where do your ideas on life come from and why do you value them the way you do?
And what does being autonomous even mean anyway? Does autonomy only matter if someone is able to communicate in a predetermined socially accepted way? Does it mean allowing someone the ability to communicate in a way that accommodates them best, and going from there? Why do some people need their autonomy restricted and when? Is it when there is a threat of harm?
How do you define harm? WHY do you define it that way? Where do you draw the line? WHY do you draw it there? Why do YOU get to determine that line over others? Genuinely - who even asked you? Why are they asking you?
These are genuine questions surrounding ethics and morality that you must reckon with if you hold opinions that seek to dictate the lives of others.
