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

[–] Lucidlethargy 3 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