Well said, Leeneia.

Appeals for understanding, acceptance, and inclusion are good. But sweeping generalizations are not (generally).

When you say " ... autism is not a disease; people with autism are not looking for a cure but for ACCEPTANCE. ..." it sort of implies that people with autism need no special help to thrive and function well in society.   I don't think that's true in most cases.
"Disease" isn't the right word or concept, but in many ways having autism is a disability that calls for remedial or special training or treatment.   

I hate the popular tendency to scoff at "political correctness," but sometimes it does become de rigeur in educated circles to use accepted terms & concepts -- such as that nobody is "disabled," only "other-abled" or "special." Sometimes it's nonsense. Blindness, deafness, severe arthritis, tone-deafness & very low intelligence are disabilities. Even though some people thus disabled may have exceptional abilities in other areas, that is not guaranteed.   I am not yet convinced that having autism is -- other things being equal -- as desirable a condition as not having it.

So I agree we should "accept" people with autism, just as we accept other people, whether they have to deal with "disabilities" or not.   But what exactly does it mean to say you wouldn't like to find a cure for autism (or ways to prevent it)?
If it gets to the point where 1 in 10 people have autism, is that just fine?