I’ve always had a good feeling forZen Buddhism and always found it very elusive. But my feeling is that they do believe there is an objective reality — Brett

If by objective reality you mean something concrete and uncanging that can be put into words then no. If you just mean "There exists a reality outside our minds" then yes. Zen and Buddhism do admit there is an external reality but they don't think it is graspable by thinking and conceptualizing. That's why they have no moral systems (some schools in Buddhism do but it is only done to ensure practitioners can be in a clear minded state as far as I know). A great example is Bushido, which is Zen for samurais as opposed to the original Buddhist teachings of peace.

Is there evidence that they didn't mean it literally? — leo

Is there evidence they do? Do you think all ancient myths were meant literally? In standard interpretations myths are not meant literally but are metaphorical. It's the same with buddhism. But no I guess I don't have evidence they didn't mean it literally.

See it that way: if as long as you haven't reached Nirvana you keep getting reincarnated when you die, but once you reach Nirvana you stay there and stop getting reincarnated, then Nirvana does not reduce to a mental state, it's a place beyond the material world. — leo

Ok I'll go with the literal interpretaion for this paragraph. Now your saying x PLACE = Objective Reality. Still I don't think those are the same type of thing. If I told you "If you climb the top of this mountain you will be safe from the predators that roam the bottom" you wouldn't say "So the top of the mountain is objective reality". I just don't get how you are relating "objective reality" to any of this

But in order to be relativists I believe they necessarily assume that there is something beyond the shadows (otherwise again they would be solipsists, believing that other humans don't experience anything).

So if they believe there is something beyond the shadows, don't they have to believe in some objective reality (as in things existing beyond their own mind)? — leo

So... Did you just say that in order for someone to be a realtivist he has to believe in some kind of objective reality? Also where did you get that they believe in something "beyond the shadows". Buddhists say "Here is a state I experienced (suffering), and here is how to get out of it to reach a better state (nirvana)" If that means they believe in objective reality to you then how can one ever be a relativist?
Does someone saying: "Here is a state I experienced (stress) and here is how to get out of it to reach a better state (relaxed), you watch TV" or something mean they believe in an objective reality

But then Buddhism cannot be characterized as relativist, otherwise it wouldn't claim that there exists a state (Nirvana) that people can reach, no? — leo

At this rate me saying "There is a McDonald's around that corner" would prove I believe in objective reality. Just saying "The case is X" doesn't automatically disqualify you form being a relativist. Saying Nirvana exists doesn't disqualify you from being a relativist.

"this a state I've reached, here is how I have reached it, but I make no guarantee that this state exists for you or that you can reach it" — leo

"This is a state I've reached".... "But I make no guarantee it exists" How?
So if I say "There is a McDonald's across the street and I reached it by crossing the road" Then I believe in objective reality? Again, with this definition the mere notion of someone being a relativist becomes impossible.

Reaching that state can be seen as reaching some absolute place that exists beyond death, so it's more than a temporary subjective state of mind provoked by some medicine. — leo

The "not beyond death" part is a literal reading of karma. Another one is "death and rebirth" from moment to moment, just refers to change. But other than that, it still makes no sense to me to say x MENTAL STATE = Objective reality. They're not the same type of thing. It's a type mismatch like saying "the color red is the objective reality". Are you saying that the state of mind exists despite us acquiring it or not?

Whereas in relativism there is nothing beyond the shadows. — leo

I don't think this is true. I think relativism is more like "you can't tell if there is something beyond the shadows so you only have the shadows to work with"

regardless of appearances. — leo

I still don't get what this means

Since gravity and other fundamental forces in the universe do not undergo change — Weynon5x

They do though. At one time they were magical voodoo powers that push and pull things. Later they became explained through "exchange particles". Later we may abandon the whole notion of forces and explain physical phenomena some other way.

Buddhism doesn't start from a materialistic metaphysics. It doesn't recognize objects and subjects. It states that all CONCEPTS (not just physical things) undergo change and thus no matter how much conceptualizing and explaining you do you will never arrive at the "truth of things" so you might as well just give up. And paradoxically by giving up you arrive at "the truth of things" (as far as I understand it, waiting for Mr expert (wayfarer) to chip in). This doesn't make it idealistic either, it makes it "null". Buddhism is about NOT trying to forcefully explain the world. (as far as I understand it, waiting for Mr expert (wayfarer) to chip in).

"Giving up" is usually misunderstood as "getting rid of attachments" but stating it this simply doesn't do it justice it's more like "getting rid of attachments while being wary that the effort of getting rid of attachments isn't just another attachment". My favorite story showcasing this is (I don't remember the exact words poem but): A centipede is walking on its way and is then asked which leg goes before which, so it gets stuck flailing around wondering how to run. Something more relatable is "being worried that you're worried" (before an exam for example). Instead what Nirvana is is the state the centipede was in before it started conceptualizing and trying to explain how it walks, a sort of "effortless understanding" (a concept common to Daoism, Buddhism and Zen)

If I were to explain Buddhism in one phrase it would be: "shut up"

Yes and then Nirvana would be that objective reality — leo

Nirvana isn't a reality it's a state of mind so idk what this is supposed to mean. If I told you "do this to cure coughing" I don't think it makes sense to say "so the medicine is the objective reality" or "so the state without coughing is the objective reality". There is nothing objective or holy about the medicine, it just works.

I'm using "objective" in the sense what really exists beyond appearances, are you guys simply referring to "what people agree on"? — leo

What does "beyond appearances" mean? I was using it to mean: "Is the case no matter what the human mind thinks of it" in other words: "is a fact"

"Right" in the way they use it means "gets you closer to Nirvana" not "morally right"

A person has not chosen his birth therefore it would be very unfair to make demands just because he has been born — Congau

Again, some people genuinely disagree with this. They believe that just being born is grounds for making demands of someone. Again, I agree with you but you can't say anything justifies either of our beliefs other than a shared sense of empathy (or whatever you wanna call it). There is no objective basis for this stuff.

The only difference is that procreation is not in itself good or bad since the potential sufferer or happy person is not yet existing — Congau

Assuming this is true, What is wrong with genetically modifying a child to suffer by... Say giving them 2 extra eyes and 4 extra legs if anything? After all the sufferer doesn't exist yet. Also what is wrong with someone signing a contract promising to sell their future children to slavery, again, the sufferer doesn't exist yet. It's situations like these that make me think that the sufferer not existing at the time the action was caused is irrelevant, the end result is the same, someone got hurt

The points you make about there not being an 'objective reality' in these cultures is kind of true, but none of their exponents would necessarily speak about it in those terms. — Wayfarer

Right now I'm reading "Way of Zen" which also makes this point. I'm not sure I fully understand the difference between "objective reality doesn't exist" and whatever an exponent would say. As far as I understand it, to say that objective reality doesn't exist would be admitting to the existence of yet another duality/concept that being "objectivity vs subjectivity" and Taoism, Zen and Buddhism do not admit of the independent existence of any concept and so their exponents would rather follow a more "Socrates like" approach and try to break down any conception their students may have making sure not to establish the conceptions of "objective vs subjective" in the process. As far as I understand, in those 3 philosophies (?), absolutely no classification of the world is acceptable as a final description, not even "objective" and "subjective"

This is really odd indeed. Are you saying that among the countless millions of our forefathers not one single person had the sense to say what you're saying, that suffering is more important than pain or is the more plausible alternative, that pain is the first of our problems, true? — TheMadFool

I.... Just straight up don't understand this paragraph idk why

That said I must agree that medicine has only managed to pluck the low hanging fruit, pain, but then to compare that with the failure to tackle suffering is like disgracing a runner for not winning before the race finishes. — TheMadFool

The thing is though, the runner in this case had never even been attempting to win the race I'm talking about. Science and Medicine don't treat suffering, they treat pain. And what I'm saying is, no matter how well you treat pain you haven't treated suffering. I haven't said you CAN'T treat suffering or that we won't some day. It's my hope that we do because while I think the suffering involved in creating a Utopia isn't worth the Utopia, since I know procreation will never cease of people's own accord realistically speaking, I'd much prefer a Utopia than whatever we have right now.

I think a physiological answer to this question has mostly been found. I used to read a lot of neuroscience books a few years ago but completely forgot everything sorry. A psychological explanation of what intuition is can be found in "thinking fast and slow" (with some neurology).

From the outset, we can’t demand that anyone does anything, but we can demand that they abstain from doing. — Congau

Why not and why? I agree with you but not everyone does.

Physical wellbeing takes precedence over mental wellbeing. I believe the history of medicine stands testimony to this - psychiatry is younger than surgery for example. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure what you mean by "take precedence over". Sure physical well-being takes the highest priority but what I'm saying is after you treat physical ailments the person treated still suffers a similar amount although he is experiencing less physical pain.

were chosen for their tangible, indubitable impact on our wellbeing — TheMadFool

Do you mean well-being as in "less suffering" or "less pain". They have an indubitable impact on the latter not the former I think.

My point is that pain has very little to do with suffering and science and technology have thus far mostly treated pain. There are cancer patients that are perfectly content and millionaires struggling with depression. There is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that human suffering has declined over time though pain definitely has.

Well, you could just phone me and say "There is a sale going on over a house you would definitely like and time is running out, i will send you the details and you could tell me whetever you wanr to but it or not." — HereToDisscuss

But if I COULDN'T do that for whatever reason I shouldn't buy the thing right? Now can I phone my future kid and ask if he'd be fine with being born? No. So I shouldn't have a kid

So, that is not a really good example. — HereToDisscuss

You're just being too literal, it is implied I can't get consent from you or else why wouldn't I? Though admittedly I'm bad with examples

There is always a risk, but it can be drastically reduced. — HereToDisscuss

Would you be fine with me, say, signing you up to the hunger games (I'm bad with examples but bear with me) without your knowledge? After all, while the risk of painful agonizing death is there, there is also the chance you win and have a lifetime of luxury ahead. Also the risk of agonizing death can be reduced significantly with proper training. So it's cool if I sign you up suddenly right? And before you say something about how life isn't nearly like the hunger games and that it's a bad analogy I ask you: How bad must life be for you to consider having children immoral? And should YOU really be the one arbitrarily deciding this? How would you react if someone punched you in the face because they arbitrarily thought that amount of pain was "low enough" that it's fine to do so? Would you forgive them if they said "grow up you should be able to handle that one"

My position on this: Life would be so much better if these were possible but it just isn't

So much for the possibility of coming out of the gutter to do great things, and in doing so helping the gutter people rid themselves of some of the gutter-ness all at the same time. — creativesoul

The opposite is also a possibility though... So that argument doesn't amount to much in my opinion.

spurious presupposition that we know what the direct consequences of our decision will be. — creativesoul

The irony is that this presupposition is exactly what you need to have children in the first place. If you knew your child would suffer miserably you wouldn't have him correct? So having children is presupposing they won't suffer or that their suffering will be "low enough" as determined arbitrarily by their parents that it isn't problematic to have them.

1. If you look at how medicine and technology has changed our lives you must agree that suffering is decreasing compared with the past where disease and the simple act of living were much more difficult
2. From the above we see a downward trend to suffering in general which bolsters our hopes that in the not so far future, suffering, harm as you put it, will become zero — TheMadFool

Both of these are debatable. What's not debatable is that PAIN has decreased. IE the actualy physical sensation that comes with disease for example. However there is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that SUFFERING (the subjective experience itself, or the mental part of pain) has changed much over time and much evidence to suggest that people experience similar amounts of suffering despite the pain. Good evidence would be the fact that poorer populations are generally happier (with exceptions at the extremes of course). That's an example of people enduring more pain, yet experiencing less suffering. I think if suffering was directly proportional to pain, we would have gone extinct loooooong ago.

But ok let's say suffering decreased

life would be preferable to nonexistence. — TheMadFool

I don't think it would. Again, no one "benefits" by coming into being. By benefit I mean strictly go from a worse state to a better state. That doesn't happen to anyone when they're born (beacuse they weren't in a state to bein with). To someone who doesn't exist (that's an oxymoron but you know what I mean) life is no more preferable as continuing non existence.

The above statement encapsulates the problem with antinatalism that the "solution" to life's problems is nonexistence. — TheMadFool

I just want to confirm this doesn't mean "Life is so bad you should just kill yourself" because that's how I read it at first. Non existence is a solution but killing to get to non existence is not a very good solution.

it becomes evidently clear that no one, choice/not, would object to a life/existence in heaven. It's like an offer you can't refuse. — TheMadFool

Agreed.

However when we're certain of what the choice will be, life in heaven in this case. we don't have to ask for consent do we? — TheMadFool

Yes because in this case it is guaranteed you're taking someone to a state they themselves would consider to be better so it's fine. For procreation: There is no one to take to a better state, you just put someone in a state they may or may not like for your own selfish reasons and now they have to deal with the consequences.

Yes, as of the moment it is unavoidable but given how much progress we've made over the ages in the happiness department you can surely see that suffering is not a necessary but a contingent truth about the world — TheMadFool

Yes but I don't think the suffering to get to said heaven is worth it. As I said, it is disputable that we have progressed in any dramatic way when it comes to reducing human suffering although we've made huge progress in reducing pain. Pain has never been the issue though suffering has.

key words:

the vast majority — Brett

The vast majority =/= everyone
And objectivity requires everyone

The idea of caring for others, the value of life, was not created by Christianity, it had to exist first. Just like the idea, I believe, that caring for others is in human nature and not some sort of contrived idea for keeping the peace, something contrived to contribute towards your survival over others.

Our capacities for caring, our morals, where do they come from? We didn’t invent them. — Brett

Nor do we share them so they're not "objective" either. Look at serial killers and psychopaths for an example.

mine wasn't a single word answer. I said "being able to convince others you own this thing" which is pretty straightforward.

Well, since i agree that negative ethics entails procreation being immoral unless Earth is devoid of any suffering whatsoever, i will ask a question: How do you justify negative ethics? — HereToDisscuss

I don't. It's my personal choice. I just looked at how I act when it comes to any other situation where one can choose to use another's resources in any way. Most people (including myself) are risk averse in those scenarios. For example if I saw a house I think you like going on sale, I wouldn't just steal your credit card and buy it without your consent simply because there is a chance you don't like it or don't want to spend the money right now. I doubt you would either. So I just extended that to procreation out of a desire for consistency.

oh ok

Being able to convince others you own this thing (Aka Power as Maw said)

Can you kindly present your version of antinatalism? — TheMadFool

It's simple. The main premise is: It is wrong to commit any act that may harm someone else unless the benefits of it massively outweigh the losses to said someone. Now lets look at procreation:

Can it harm someone? Definitely.
Do the benefits to me (having a family) outweigh the potential harm? Absolutely not because it just puts my child in the same scenario where HE considers whether or not to have a family and so on and so on. It's like stealing food from a starving person to alleviate my own starvation. People have kids because because they naturally want families, in other words procreation alleviates the pain and loneliness or living alone but does so at the price of transposing the problem wholesale onto someone else which is a ridiculous solution. Add to that all the suffering my child will have to endure over a lifetime and no, my suffering due to not having a family cannot hope to outweigh that realistically.

2. A life of joy is desirable. — TheMadFool

important distinction to be made here I think. A life of joy is desirable TO THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE. There are no magical ghost babies desiring joy or avoiding pain. In other words, NOT procreating doesn't mean you're "denying" someone something desirable (an argument I see often, not that you made it)

Now imagine a person being given choices as follows:

1. Hell
2. Earth
3. Heaven
4. Nonexistence — TheMadFool

Again. Imagaine a PERSON being given these choices. There is no such person. Antinatalism isn't about making the "best decision" for some non existent entity. It merely is avoiding risking harming someone. That is literally all there is to it.

The foundation under antinatalism is suffering. There is no suffering in heaven. So, no, antinatalism can never provide a good reason to opt for nonexistence over heaven. — TheMadFool

True that. In that case procreation would not risk harming someone.

Doesn't this mean that life/existence is NOT the problem here and that existence is sufficiently distinct from suffering? — TheMadFool

When did I imply otherwise? I never said life is inherently problematic, if I thought it was I would be a pro mortalist. The problem with bringing people into this life is that they will suffer whereas they wouldn't have to if they weren't here.

In short I think it's possible to make earth a heaven. No suffering, no antinatalism. — TheMadFool

If earth was a heaven I wouldn't be an antinatalist. Now what of all those who will suffer in order to make this heaven? Why go through so much suffering to achieve something just as good (per negative ethics) as non existence (Because a life of 0 suffering and non existence are equivalent to negative ethics)? Why should the present generation suffer for the unproven hope that a future generation won't have to?

Heck as antinatalists go I'm pretty lenient. I don't think procreation is wrong out of principle, I just think the risk of harm outweighs the benefit to the individual for the vast majority of cases. You can argue otherwise, but that would be saying "If I don't have kids I'd be suffering more from just that fact than my kids would suffer their entire lifetime" which I find HIGHLY unlikely.

The antinatalist can't see the distinction between life and suffering. — TheMadFool

What in what I said made you think that? My life has been pretty joyful and I don't think life is suffering though you insist I do.

You say even "some" suffering is good enough to decide. — TheMadFool

Some wasn't the best word. "Any" is better.

Doesn't that mean no suffering or perhaps ecstatic joy would make the antinatalist decide otherwise. — TheMadFool

No it wouldn't because in negative ethics you don't care how much joy is created. If you are proposing a life with a guarantee of no suffering whatsoever, then by negative ethics that life is neither good nor evil to start.

If 1 were true then antinatalists have no argument. Right? — TheMadFool

Sure.

The antinatalist/pessimist thinks 3 is the truth. — TheMadFool

No they don't, at least not all of them.

I'm saying the situation is actually 2 — TheMadFool

Agreed. In negative ethics you RECOGNIZE that joy exists, but you absolutely don't care about it when making moral decision. That's the definition of negative ethics

and then the following basic arithmetic is possible. — TheMadFool

Keyword: Possible. Not guaranteed. Why take the risk of harming someone else just becuase it's possible they can deal with it? Do you find that acceptable in any other situation? If it was guaranteed that's pretty much just situation 1.

The antinatalist/pessimist position is as follows:

1. Life is suffering or suffering outweighs happiness — TheMadFool

No. Antinatalism doesn't require this to be the case. It just requires that life includes SOME suffering or that it risks including suffering (I don't think either of these can be denied). Negative ethics just means that the rule is to avoid harm. There is some harm in coming into life. Therefore one should avoid bringing more people into life. That's it. Pleasure or joy never comes into the equation.

I think this is the mode of thinking most people employ when it comes to using others' resources. For example, even if I know you like chocolate, I wouldn't use your money to buy you chocolate without your consent. In the same way, even if I knew my future child would MOST LIKELY (notice how there is even less certainty in this case) enjoy life, I wouldn't have him just in case he finds it terrible. This harms no one whereas the alternative risks harming someone. It is true the alternative also risks bringing more joy than harm, but joy doesn't come into the equation when using negative ethics.

2. If life is suffering or suffering outweighs happiness then nonexistence is better than life
So, — TheMadFool

Again, this is not antinatalism this is pro mortalism. If you believed this the next conclusion would be that murder is a good if done painlessly but I haven't seen anyone here advocating surprise euthanasia

there are two recurring arguments I see against antinatalism on this website (many more than 2 but these are the two I've read on this thread so far). The first is trying to say that not having children harms some magical ghost babies like @TheMadFool was trying to do with his decapitation example. The second is trying to say that giving birth doesn't count as a harm to which I answer: Do you find it morally acceptable for someone to genetically modify their child to make them suffer? Such as for example by giving them extra fragile limbs. If not why not despite the fact that:

"The conditions of harm" are not the harm itself. And there is no "aggression" against an embryo that gestates through foetal and prenatal stages to live birth. Harm and aggression only apply to a sentient human being which a human foetus only becomes once her thalamocortical system is fully connected — 180 Proof

Not even a quack, let alone a qualified doctor, would prescribe beheading as a cure for a headache. The aim is to treat the malady - suffering - AND make life enjoyable or at least livable. I guess I'm saying, in a very important way, antinatalists are unable to distinguish the patient (life) from the disease (suffering) and this leads them to the mistaken conclusion that life (patient) = disease (suffering). — TheMadFool

How is the person getting "beheaded" in the case of antinatalism? Who is getting harmed? Antinatalism isn't at all like prescribing beheadings to deal with a headache. It's more like not risking giving SOMEONE ELSE a headache in the first place just because YOU would take the risk.

I think it comes into play most when it comes to procreation. There are several first principles that must be agreed upon- — schopenhauer1

That's what I'm saying. They aren't agreed upon. Although I believe it is the case that most people DO agree with these principles and still have kids out of pure hypocrisy or just having never thought about it, I wouldn't be surprised if some people didn't agree with these principles at all.

yea, not necessarily a conscious one though. The OP could've been written by a human looking robot for all I know. Heck I don't know if you're conscious or not. What I can't confuse however is whether or not I'm conscious (I am but you don't have to take my word for it)

Notice how the quote begins with the key words I BELIEVE. I could find you a similar quote that advocates the exact opposite and also begins with I Believe. Would that change your mind? Not very likely, so don’t expect this quote to change anyone’s mind either.

Besides, while what makes people happy varies from person to person and from day to day for each of us, what makes people miserable, or suffer, is the same for everyone (i.e. not "subjective" in the least) — 180 Proof

Uhhhhh No?

deprivation, physical dysfunction (i.e. illness), harm of any kind, helplessness (i.e. trapped, confined, fear-terror), betrayal, bereavement, etc - in effect, involuntary decrease or loss of agency — 180 Proof

There is a group of people called masochists so that ends that.

therefore, we (can) reasonably judge whether or not, by action or inaction, conduct decreases (i e. avoids mitigates or relieves) someone's - some creature's - suffering. Hardly a (merely) "subjective" consideration. — 180 Proof

When did I say we couldn’t? I never said we couldn’t REASONABLY (key word) judge how our conduct affects the suffering of others, what I said was that even if we are in agreement that an act will increase said suffering, some will find it ok as long as it creates a certain level of happiness (positive ethics) and some won’t (negative ethics)

Why would the prevention of suffering take a back seat to the promotion of "well-being"? — schopenhauer1

Why would it be the other way? I think this is purely up to subjective judgement, though it is a common fact that most people are much more loss averse than gain seeking and I'm one of them

it depends on how you define "exist". I define it as "have subjective experience" in which case you really can't confuse whether or not you have it

I don't see anything wrong with your reading or with the conclusion that one would treat life as sacred as a result. What I do have a problem with is saying that not having children is "denying" someone this sacred life. Who exactly are you "denying" something from? They don't even exist. If not having children is denying someone this sacred life and if that's wrong somehow then doesn't this mean one HAS to have as many children as humanly possible?

"show they are true" can also be interpreted both ways..... Either empirical or axiomatic proof. I was saying that you can't prove newton's laws axiomatically in the same way you can prove that the sum of angles in a triangle is always 180.

Give one yourself. — S

I can't think of one. That's the thing.

All you have to do is think of a situation where the parents make a decision based on what they consider to be best for the child where that doesn't necessarily match up with the least risky option. — S

That IS the least risky option though. Just so we're on the same page: The least risky option is the one that risks the least harm. Parents always try to do the thing they believe will risk harming their child the least.

A fish is just like a dog! — S

That's not what my analogies are like though. The things being compared share common features, it's just that one is extreme. Fish and dogs don't share any common features.

The OP was "I would like to know how you can prove these laws". I explained that the answer depended on what you mean by proof. No where was this:

He clarified that by "prove", he means show to be the case. — S

Said.

False — S

Give an example of it being false.

Basically a repetition of the same false assertion. — S

The same correct assertion.

Another false analogy. You're really bad at analogies. — S

This was an example of a very stupid unnecessary surgery. At being that it did its job. Why is this one a false analogy do you mind explaining?

Also you haven't answered this, which is the most important question I had for you

how in the world do you expect me to go about proving a claim such as "In every situation when consent is not available the least risky option is chosen". Do you seriously expect me to go over every conceivable situation where consent is not available and you have to make a situation for someone else?

It would be so much easier for you to come up with a counterexample to disprove it wouldn't it? — khaled

You can't. If by prove you mean the same sort of "proof" required in math. In sciences you try to see whether or not something is the case. In math where "proof" is generally used, you try to prove whether or not something MUST be the case. You can't prove whether or not Newton's laws must be the case but you can prove whether or not they are the case with good accuracy (through experiment)

The alternative I am offering is, essentially, that future people have no moral weight at all. I don't like the implications of that, but I'd like to know if anyone can offer a convinving argument that they do. — Echarmion

No one can. That's a moral premise. You can't "convince" someone of a premise logically. For example: no one can prove that if A=B and B=C that A=C and yet we all believe it. If someone said he doesn't believe that statement to be true there would be not argument to convince them. If you don't like the implications of it maybe use a different premise?

That means that while we are still deciding, we have to treat the future child as non-existant in the present and future. — Echarmion

We don't "have to". That's the premise you decide to use which we don't share. Even through you recognize that it has ridiculous implications. Such as for example: it's perfectly ok to genetically engineer children to suffer.

The special case is creating new moral subjects in the first place. — Echarmion

I just said I don't believe this is a special case and in response you re assert that it is. This doesn't help anyone

Even if I concede that point for the purposes of this argument, this still leaves the question of how future people can exist — Echarmion

No? I never claimed future people can "exist" in the same way people do but that we should not act in a way that harms someone in the future regardless of whether or not they existed then and that's the argument you just conceded. That is enough to make the case for antinatalism. I don't need to claim the existence of magical ghost babies if you concede that:

That if an action results in harming someone in the future, it doesn't matter whether or not that person existed at the time the action took place. — khaled

Does procreation harm someone in the future? Yes. Did they exist at the time it took place? No and that doesn't matter. So don't procreate. No magical ghost babies needed.

There are lots of things that children can't consent to, and which carry risks, some of which are severe, like with almost any medication or surgery — S

Yes. And for all of those cases where putting a child through surgery is considered to be ok is when the risk of not going through surgery Trumps the risk of going through surgery. You wouldn't consider it moral for parents to force their children to go through a surgery that replaces their hands with hooves for example would you? Because there is no way that's needed. The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option.