This point is highly dependent on whether or not you believe there is some sort of soul or existence before birth. I cannot argue on this point since this is pure belief, so I will accept your view for the sake of the discussion

Questions how not doing so could have prevented suffering

You could say it prevents suffering, but it also prevents Joy, Love, Friendship. Sure it also prevents Sadness and Grief and so on. It prevents everything by way of not giving life a chance.

If you think you cannot provide a happy life to your children then it's perfectly valid to not want children. But it's egoistic to think that other people should not have kids because of your own world view.

Many Antinatalists believe that life in the current world is filled with so much suffering that it's not worth being born.

But that's like... Your opinion man! Let people make their own choices

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Important distinction: Only one side is using "belief", and that is the one that has subscribed or invented themselves the idea of life before or after death. Zero evidence supports this. I'm not saying it does or does not exist, but it's a weak point to bring up.

You could just as easily invent the idea of children being literally us, reborn, to justify their creation. Or that children are literal currency in the after-life market. Conversly, what if taking lives gives us points? Maybe the Vikings had it right.

As for your second point, I think it's the first strong natalistic argument I've seen here! I don't agree with it any more than I agree with the antinatalism folks, but I appreciate the optimistic counter to all of the pessimistic points being made here.

In the end, I guess I remain of the opinion that this area of life (like countless others) is a gray area. I don't see either extreme as logically moral or immoral without more information being applied on a, case-by-case basis

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate here, however. People who justify having children as some sort of gift to the world are far less reasonable, and the arguments being made here by those types are exhausting.

I can diffuse just about every comment like this here with a simple word: "adoption".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I agree that bringing life into the world is morally bad. I also agree that eating other animals is morally bad, as is killing, always. However, that does not mean we should not do these things at times. You just need to understand that you are still committing an immoral act for personal gain. There is no such thing as a perfectly moral existence, as the world is a cruel place which cares little about morality and often forces you to be immoral. You should instead work towards being as moral as in out can when you can, and accept that sometimes morality is out of your hands.

In the case of the child: you are bringing a human consciousness kicking and screaming into this world you know to be dangerous and cruel. That is immoral, and you did it either by failing precaution, or out of personal want or instinct. I think to repent, you are morally obligated to give that child a good life at minimum and ideally the best life you can. You are beholden to them until they can live on their own happily, and you are obligated to help them even after that. I also think that if that child resents how you've cared for them, you have no grounds to hold that against them, as you were the one that forced them into this world.

If you cannot do the above, you are should reconsider whether you are fit to have a child.

It is also arguable that to do justice without injustice, the only option is to adopt or guide another person who has no one providing things they need, and I don't think this kindness should be limited to children but children are the most vulnerable.