I am happy to see the answers to my question. I was curious how people took objectivist ideas in regards to those less capable. The whole concept is the right to choose your own path not a path chosen for you by others.

You are allowed to care for whomever you want, but we are forced to by the parasites, they claim that it is our civil duty to provide money for their homes, meals, and the clothes on their back. I truly say that a person always has something that another person wants, you can always sell your time, labor, or an idea. People have lost the ability to help themselves. I do not give any charity money, I give rewards to teach them what it means to produce something. This world needs more producers and less parasites.

private means of support are good;;; government is not.
govt uses force to take value from some and give it
to others. -- j
.

A person can choose to be charitable, to help others, and that, the choice is an honorable and sincere thing. It is when a person is mandated to help others, taxed or coerced, that charity is no longer charity; nor is it sincere. This has nothing to do with Objectivism and everything to do with freedom. If anything is taken from you without your consent, and you are given no choice in the matter, it's stolen.

lazaruslong has not responded to any of the answers. maybe he feels foolish for even posting the question.

To my understanding (from only reading two fiction books), it does not only allow for caring for people with disabilities, but it asserts you have an absolute natural right to care for them or not care for them.