This was a post in another thread, but I thought it would be interesting as its own thread.

Here are some thoughts:

Being "thrown into existence" is a political act, whether it is overtly stated that way or not by the parent. That is to say, a certain stance is made about existence, and more specifically human existence, which is one couched in a social sphere- a society.

A society is comprised of a community of people (traditionally) in a geographical area, interacting with each other, following similar rules and guidelines, and broadly-speaking, sharing some similarity in values. One of the values that all societies seem to share is that a "flourishing" should take place for the family/individual/whole community. What that flourishing looks like, and the methodology to get there can vary widely, but it seems to be the case that some sort of homeostatic "living well" is a part of this. This definition does not have to be tied strictly to Eudaimonia, but simply the idea of surviving (usually comfortably), and in a sort of continual and consistent lifestyle.

The parents of a child, if they bring their child to term (taking away discussions of abortion for now), usually believe that a new person should be enculturated into a society- that is to say, they should learn the lifestyle and methodology of surviving within a certain community. This enculturation and methodology is deemed as good. There is something, they think, a new person should experience about that community. For example, they can experience personal accomplishment through projects/work. They can experience joy in laughter with friends. They can experience being cared for and caring for a significant other. They can experience the psychological state of "flow"- being super focused in an activity that matches a person's interests and abilities. Also they can experience the pleasures of learning a skill or area of knowledge, and becoming an expert. They can experience being a citizen in a broader community by participating in a number of roles and events. The person can experience the various avenues of physical and more abstract mental pleasures that a community can provide. This hope for a well-adjusted human that "thrives" in a community is probably the kind of thing a thoughtful parent is aiming for. They like these aspects of the community/life and want a new person to also experience a community/life. It is very much sociologically-based reasoning. Even religious-based reasons are sociological-based. A new person needs to be born to experience the glories of serving that god. There is believed to be a goodness to the community serving the god, usually. Even scientific-oriented parents can have a similar idea about their progeny. The progeny can contribute to the technology/science, and overall knowledge of mankind through their community, thus being perceived as "enhancing" their community.

Not only is it sociological in aims, but the act of reproduction is by definition a communal affair. Two people have to have enjoyed life or thought life good enough to get together within their respective communities, had sex, and carried a child out to term. This is again, a sociological act. There is an affirmation in all of this- by the act of two people coming together, and by the aims of thoughtful parents for how they want their potential child to live.

So to conclude this section, and circle back to my original statement, parents are consenting that, yes, they like society and feel it is their right to continue it forward with a new person to experience that society and continue the existence of that society. Hence, it is a political act, if not overtly. Actually, it may be the political act. Without procreation, there is no community/lifestyle/experience of said lifestyle to be had by anyone. Thus, the ultimate political "yay" or "in favor of" is procreation.

However, what is not usually recognized is the structural suffering inherent in existence- built into the human affair. Structural means that it is not based on contingent circumstances like genetics, place of birth, circumstances in time/place, or fortune. Structural suffering can be seen in things like the inherent "lack" that pervades the animal/human psyche. We are lacking at almost all times. The need for food and shelter, the need for mates, the need for friends, the need for interesting projects, the need for flow states, the need for comfortable environments. These "goods" represents things WE DO NOT HAVE (aka lack). We are constantly STRIVING for what is hoped to be fulfilling, but at the end, only temporarily fills the lack state, and for short duration. Structural suffering can also be seen in the psychological state of boredom. I don't see boredom as just another state, I see it as an almost baseline- state. It is a "proof" of existence's own unfulfilled state. This leads again, striving for what we lack. There is a certain burden of being- the burdens of making do- of getting by, of surviving, of filling the lack, of dealing with existence. That we have to deal in the first place is suspect. That not everyone is committing suicide is not a "pro" for the "post facto, people being born is justified" stance. Rather, suicide and being born in the first place are incommensurable.

Then of course, there is the contingent suffering (what is commonly what is thought of as suffering). This is the circumstantial suffering of physical/psychological pains that pervade an individual's life. This may be any form of physical or more emotional pain that befalls a person.

The parents' perspective are that the goods of life, the encultration into society for which these goods are to be had, is something to be experienced and carried forward. Structural suffering is not even seen in the picture. You only go with the information you have at hand, and you deem most important. Structural suffering is not a concept most parents think about, even if it is the main governing principle of animal/human existence. As far as contingent suffering, it has been well-documented the optimism bias that we have in underestimating the harms for past and future events.