@timandra. It is obvious that you have hugely personal experience of the situation. I am not going to patronise you by offering either sympathy or congratulations. I do however respect you for putting yourself and your situation out there and being prepared to post about it.
You have not posted any further details of your situation as to whether you had tests before your births, whether you thought you needed to have tests, whether you even knew there were tests or whether at the time you were pregnant tests were even available. As you have two autistic children we do not know whether the genetic possibility of having a second autistic child i.e. 20 times more likely, was even explained to you. In short we do not know much about your personal circumstances.
However, the argument is similar to the one concerning children with Down Syndrome. The parents who have this test then have a very difficult decision to make, whether to proceed with the pregnancy, in full knowledge, or to have a termination.
But at least they have fairly accurate knowledge of a fairly accurate test and its results.
Prenatal testing for Autism is nowhere near as accurate AND not so many parents even think of having it done.
See www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/the-problems-with-prenatal-testing-for-autism/ for a description of it all. (This is for other Mums to read as I am sure you know it all already.)
So I stand by my statement that it is largely a matter of luck whether a parent has a child with autism or not.
My " bold statement" as you put it was not in fact a statement it was a question. In fact two questions. You, as far as I am aware, are the only person who is posting on this thread who could possibly answer these questions, or anyway, the first one. You have chosen not to, beyond saying that the question is not a simple one.
Never in my wildest imaginings did I think there could possibly be an easy answer. If there had been a test for you and you did know of the possibility I am sure you must have been torn in two about it all. But if research into these fields is to go ahead, and human beings are going to benefit from this research, doctors, psychiatrists, politicians etc need to know at least some of the answers before going ahead and deciding that all pregnant women should have tests for various possible maladies occuring to their foetuses or not. The tests for Down syndrome are routinely offered to women nowadays, not necessarily all women but a great many, especially as women are having babies nowadays much older than used to be the norm. Do you think this should be stopped? Do you think testing for all possible abnormalities should become routine thus giving women choice? Which after all is what we are all told nowadays is what people always want? Or do you think that the sanctity of life should overule all possible medical advances and no tests should be offered? Thus leading to the situation being what it was about 50 years ago where having a baby with an abnormality was simply seen as part of life and the mother should just get on with it. That was how it was when my brother was born. We just got on with it. But my mother, a doctor, suffered guilt feelings about his situation, (as if she could have done anything about it,) for the rest of her life. It absolutely changed the dynamic of the family.
As the weblink shows, prior knowledge of the possibility of having an autistic child leads to " women describe these decisions as “tortured” and talk about a “frenzied search” for more information."
So, I never said the answer was simple. I never suggested an answer, I simply raised the question. Some people in full knowledge of the fact that they have a foetus which shows the symptoms of Down syndrome, do carry the baby to full term. But as studies show, far fewer now do, as a result of accurate testing being available.
I agree it was a bold question but I refuse to accept that it was uniformed. I am not going to reiterate my previous post about living with two family members with mental health issues, you can re-read it yourself, it shows I have very personal experience, But quite apart from this I have had personal experience in working with both adults and children with autism. 25% of the students in my school of 1600 students had statements and many of those were autistic, or on the autistic spectrum, so I have seen the many and varied forms of autism that exist and have worked with these students. I probably saw more autistic children on a daily basis than many people meet in their whole lives. I even had a colleague whose husband is on the autistic spectrum and is an airline pilot. Although it makes other parts of his life difficult, it doesn't mean he cannot do a very tricky and responsible job very well. I'd rather fly with him than anyone else I know.
So, you have very direct knowledge of the situation, I have direct knowledge of a similar situation and direct but more superficial knowledge of many children on the autistic spectrum.
So your remark that my "statement" was "uninformed" is absolutely and fundamentally not correct.
As your situation is a deeply personal one and as this whole thread has got a bit off topic, I don't really expect you to answer my question. But nevertheless, the question hangs in the air and professionals from walks of life that this situation, to test or not to test, impinges upon, have some difficult moral, ethical and sadly religious decisions to make. But it doesn't mean that ordinary folk should not consider them without being told they are being "bold". In the end, the world often needs bold thoughts and bold actions.