I used to spend some time in antivax circles when DS1 was little. I'd never heard any criticism of vaccines before so I was worried by it and wanted to find out more. (He is vaccinated now.)
I don't think it's as simple as autism = alive. Autism can be very very severe and very debilitating. Of course it can be very mild as well and people can live full/happy/independent lives. But certainly it's not black and white like that. Certain conditions when discovered in utero can be terminated for, one well known example is Down's Syndrome, another syndrome which can range from having a mild effect to being so severe that the child has a very short life expectancy.
Also, most antivaxxers have moved on from autism since this is quite well proven not to be a link, unless they are part of the group which generally believe that "toxins" in our environment from a variety of sources are contributing to various health issues including autism, so they don't accept these studies as they don't believe vaccines are a sole cause, just part of a widespread issue.
When DS1 was little SIDS was the bogeyman "caused by vaccines", because the cause of SIDS is unknown and routine vaccines coincide with peak SIDS risk times (similar to how the MMR timing coincides with a typical autistic regression). Now there's research showing that babies who have been vaccinated on schedule are less susceptible to SIDS.
So the other one is "vaccine damage", which is a vague phrase basically referring to a combination of allergic reactions/bad side effects from the vaccine, which is absolutely a real risk, and can include encephalitis which can lead to permanent disability or death (I'll come back to this) and of unexplainable medical events for example autoimmune disorders, mental health issues, ADHD, and so on where we don't yet understand the causes, they get pinned onto vaccination because it's a blanket thing which most of the population has and most people don't understand very well. Plus, as you'll know, even if you're totally pro vaccination, it's never nice to take your tiny little unsuspecting baby to the doctor's to see them get painfully jabbed. I think there is a bit of a primal, needing to protect the baby from pain instinct going on there, you do have to have a pretty strong conviction that the benefit is worth it to be able to push past that one.
So that's the risks antivaxxers worry about, and honestly they aren't that insane. General toxins in environment probably is a legitimate worry, and it is worth being aware, though people should generally be aware that the concentrations in vaccines are well below the amounts considered dangerous, they do serve a purpose and the expert view is that the benefit outweighs the risk in this case many many times. This is a case where the incidence is high (it affects everyone) but the cost is low (nothing really happens as a result).
Allergic reactions and side effects are a risk which will never completely go away, but contrary to what antivaxxers will tell you the manufacturers and doctors and scientists are perfectly open about this, it's not some hidden scandal. The existence of compensation funds is not proof they are buying people off, it's simply an expected risk of treatment which is budgeted for. This is the case for all treatments. If there's a family history of this kind of reaction, doctors will usually advise that a child not have a particular (or sometimes any) vaccines. This is the opposite of the toxin problem in that the incidence is low - it affects hardly anyone - but the cost is high. For that reason some people find it a scary risk to accept.
However most people accept the expert view which is that the benefits of vaccination in terms of preventing disease make these two small risks worth it. Antivaxxers don't - either because they can't get past the low incidence, high cost risk (which is odd because they are accepting another) - or, mostly, because they don't actually believe that the benefits are that great. Some antivaxxers simply don't believe vaccination is effective (I find this one really hard to get my head around - I don't understand what they think clinical trials are for), some believe it works fine but that natural immunity is "better" (despite the process of gaining natural immunity being much more risky than a vaccine...), some believe it's simply unnecessary because these diseases are declining anyway, some believe that the disease will mutate to "get around" the vaccine - BTW - odd, OP, that you brought this up as an anti-antivax argument, when it is one they tend to use themselves! In any case you're both getting confused with antibiotic resistance. But the most common theory I heard was that many of the diseases we vaccinate against aren't really very serious, the ones which particularly come up here are measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, rotavirus and flu. I could get into this more but the post is long enough.