Autism is an extremely broad term. At one extreme, those who will never speak and spend their lives enraged by being unable to communicate. At the other, a very substantial fraction of the worlds finest science & engineering minds.

I wouldn't mind a few more of the latter.

It's also true that a large portion of the high support needs cohort have other developmental disabilities. Autism is often co-diagnosed but doesn't account for the entirety of that demographic.

you see, mentally right now choosing between neurodiversity and selection you voted for selection.

Okay, fair enough: that was a shit way for me to make a point.

There's nothing wrong with preferring that people have the ability to communicate with others (vs them not having that ability).

The moral issue is externally-enforced selection (AKA eugenics), which seems to persistently rear its ugly head as soon as you start talking about disability.

My friend (edit: redacted) chose not to have kids, because every ancestor he could trace on his paternal line had died of cancer around age 40, and he didn't think it was fair to inflict that on somebody else. I think that was a wise and moral choice - but it would not be wise or moral to take the choice away from him.

Wouldn't it be justified to find a family member in his family tree that did not follow this "rule of thumb"?

Then you merely have to marry someone from that same family.

Or just marry a single mother who already has children.

How’s he doing on the cancer front so far?

He's made it to 50 via monthly blood tests, early intervention & staying extremely fit. Has still had more than his share of chemotherapy though.

We certainly want to be more welcoming and accommodating to autistic people, even we don't want to forcibly induce more autism in people.