It's not the same as Benatar's argument. — Bartricks

It is the same as Benatar's argument.

Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. — David Benatar - Better Never To Have Been

Again, I reject - reject - Benatar's argument for that conclusion. You don't seem to grasp that there can be different ways to arrive at the same conclusion.

Most people are going to have kids and aren't remotely interested in whether it's ethical to do so or not. I mean, have you met people? — Bartricks

Please. Why do you want to add to the bad image that philosophy already has in culture at large, and rightfully so?

Apparently, you want to produce a valid argument but for which you foresee no practical application in the real world, even though the content of the argument has everything to do with the practical application in the real world.

If you'd be arguing for something like whether there is an unlimited number of simple substances from which the universe consists, or whether that number is limited, I wouldn't object. But you're taking a subject with enormous real-world implications and treating it as if it were trivial.

All along, you have been the one emphasizing the people at large don't want to live monkish lifestyles nor are they required to do so.

So what gives?