Would it be better to be born without a hand?

There's a conversation about this happening among CHASA parents right now-- Would it be easier to parent a one-handed kid than a child with hemiplegic cerebral palsy?-- and most are taking the obviously correct view that we can never understand someone else's struggles, so we shouldn't even be thinking about this.

Still, once mentioned, we are thinking about it.  The actual "would it be easier?" question is futile (it's a bit like asking, "Would my life be easier if I were two inches taller?" when it doesn't much matter because I'm not.), but I think it is interesting why some parents are even discussing this:

1. Because one-handedness is purely physical.*  Pediatric strokes frequently lead to seizures and have emotional, behavioral, speech, and cognitive consequences, in addition to the physical.
2. Because one-handedness is known and definitive.*  No amount of physical therapy is going to lead to a new limb.  Lots of therapy might (or might not) change outcomes for a child with hemiplegia.  New braces might help (or might not),  Surgery might help (or might not). The symptoms might get worse (or might not).        
3. Because people don't assume I one handed person is stupid.  Eh.  That's probably not true.  I'm sure there are a few idiots who speak loudly and slowly in the presence of a one-handed person because that's what they do with anyone who is different. But despite the Stephen Hawking example, many people correlate coordination with intelligence.  
4. Because one can't see one-handedness from across the room, which may lead to first impressions other than, "walks funny".  

I'd welcome your thoughts.  And no, we are not going to chop off anyone's limb in order to find out.

*Remember that we are dealing with a perception of one-handed life here.  Not actual one-handed life.  I can think of lots of reasons these could be completely incorrect, but I'd rather post something from someone with knowledge than just speculate both sides.