A distinct reproductive disadvantage is not a reason to believe the philosophy will necessarily fail. There have been antinatalists since classic times and I don’t know anyone who’s seriously tried to address the position. That should tell you something. Also using the fact that a philosophy will likely lose is no good reason not to follow it yourself. Just because it’s a minor philosophy does not “prohibit” you from seeing the sense in it and sticking to it, that just sounds like an excuse to me

Not 'necessarily', of course. In contemplating it, I don't even get to the point of considering it seriously. It is unnecessary to bother with. It is self-limiting.

it being self limiting doesn't make it unnecessary to bother with. That's exactly what I'm saying. That just sounds like an excuse to me. "I don't care if the makes sense or not because it's not gonna win in the end". Even if it doesn't have an impact on humanity as a whole it can have an impact on you. And I don't see why it shouldn't

Sentiment? What sentiment? I’m just making a statement of fact. Do I know my kids would not be miserable wretches despite my best efforts? No and neither do you. So this establishes that bringing someone into existence is a risk. — khaled

The risk to you or the unborn child?

You force someone to live for 80 years with very high emotional consequences on both parties if they try to commit suicide early while risking they have a miserable life. All of this for no good reason. — khaled

What's to say that your child or whatnot is going to do that?

In the near term people who don't want kids not having kids might create a strain on the social security system. Not nearly enough concern or potential for impact to me to care. I'm not going to try to persuade those who don't want kids to have kids.

In the longer term, as has happened on this planet for the last 4.5 Byrs, those life forms and groups within species that reproduce persist. Those that don't perish. It is the foundation of life.

The risk to you or the unborn child? — Wallows

Risk to the child that will be born. In the same way that setting a bear trap in an empty park is a risk for people that will be there even though they're not there right now

What's to say that your child or whatnot is going to do that? — Wallows

I didn't say they WILL have a miserable life. I said they might despite my best efforts

I am aware of all of this. None of it prevents you from taking the position seriously in your personal life.

That is not a good reason. Because I don’t care how small the chances of being miserable are (although I don’t think they’re that low) it’s still not a good reason to take a risk FOR someone else when they will pay the consequences. — khaled

I think it is a good reason, because the odds are by far in favor of not being miserable. Maybe you don't take good bets, but I do. I think good bets are worthwhile to take.

If you don’t agree then you wouldn’t mind someone stealing your bank account to invest most of your savings in a certain business without your consent — khaled

We're not at all talking about doing something against anyone's consent. Consent requires someone capable of granting or withholding consent.

I have kids. I'm not against having more, although at this point, it requires younger women who are open to mating with an older guy and who don't mind relationships with someone who is married.

I think it is a good reason, because the odds are by far in favor of not being miserable. Maybe you don't take good bets, but I do. I think good bets are worthwhile to take. — Terrapin Station

This right here is the main point. The point isn't "don't take bets", it's "don't take bets with SOMEONE ELSE". I like taking bets, I enjoy life for the most part but that doesn't justify taking that bet for someone else.

We're not at all talking about doing something against anyone's consent. Consent requires someone capable of granting or withholding consent. — Terrapin Station

So it's ok to put bear traps in a park because you can't get consent from the people that will be there later because they don't exist right now and you don't know who they are? The point isn't going AGAINST consent. Any action that risks harming someone required explicit consent. If that is not given then it is assumed that person is effectively saying no. That's why you don't rape a sleeping woman even though "there is no entity to get consent from right now"

I have kids. I'm not against having more — Terrapin Station

Why not? I thought your reason for having kids is that it helps the kid because of the balance of pleasure and pain they'll likely experience. Thus by your own logic you should work to your utmost to have as many kids as possible

If you're in the mood to argue, let's do one thing at a time, so we can solve that thing and move on from it.

So it's ok to put bear traps in a park because you can't get consent from the people that will be there later because they don't exist right now and you don't know who they are? — khaled

People who exist are capable of granting or withholding consent, aren't they?

The point isn't going AGAINST consent. Any action that risks harming someone required explicit consent. — khaled

What if a parent reads this, feels like they have committed some kind of crime against their kid and kills themself`? Shouldn't you get consent before spreading your ideas.

What about inactions? Should we get consent for not acting if this harms someone?

What if my kids would view never having had a chance to live as harm?

Why are pleasure and pain the measure of a life? I oftne set goals for myself that require dealing with more pain than if I was a hedonist. I do this because the life in me wants to experience certain things and be expressive in certain ways. Am I harming myself? And yes, I understand that I can give consen for this, but my point is that I think harm is being defined as if hedonism was the obvious choice that life makes. I dont think this is the case. Or if it is, the type of pleasure is so nuanced it is really not a good term for it. And pain too is misleading.

I have had a hard life, at least for a Westerner. Repeated trauma, as one example. But I am glad that I got this life. I am life. I want it.

An antinatalist wants life to stop. I think the universe is better with life and as far as I can see most life agrees, in its general avoidance of death. In its seeking out more life. And in us even creating challenges and goals that require suffering that we could avoid.

The antinatalist dislikes life. I have sympathy for that.

But the antinatalist talks about consent, when they try to convince life that life is bad and should not have been. Imagine if they were effective in convincing people. Where did they get the consent to try to end all future life? Do they have the consent of the unborn to try to convince the living not to have them?

In the end it is guilt in the guise of kindness. Life, you have committed a crime, because really Life you don't want to live.

It won't be effective, this proselytizing, but the goal of it is quite hypocritical.

I didn't say they WILL have a miserable life. I said they might despite my best efforts — khaled

Yeah, so I think this is the difference between you and the majority of other antinatalists that I have seen hereabouts. In that in your case you aren't overgeneralizing for the sum total of all people in the world, whereas others think that the structural suffering and constant strife is proof of making a choice as to not perpetuate it.

But, one has to realize the inherent illogicality of this whole rationale, being that how can one ad hoc provide reasons for not wanting to continue suffering in the world for an entity that has never experienced anything at all?

What if a parent reads this, feels like they have committed some kind of crime against their kid and kills themself`? Shouldn't you get consent before spreading your ideas. — Coben

No because I didn't force them to read it. Unlike with children who you force into this world.

What if my kids would view never having had a chance to live as harm? — Coben

Then it's not your responsibility. It's not your responsibility to make someone happier, but to not make them suffer more. You don't have to donate to charity but you can't kill people. If someone asks you to give them money (or life) you don't have to but you can't take away money (or life) from someone else

What about inactions? Should we get consent for not acting if this harms someone? — Coben

I believe inaction should never be morally punishable.

Why are pleasure and pain the measure of a life? I oftne set goals for myself that require dealing with more pain than if I was a hedonist. I do this because the life in me wants to experience certain things and be expressive in certain ways. Am I harming myself? And yes, I understand that I can give consen for this, but my point is that I think harm is being defined as if hedonism was the obvious choice that life makes. I dont think this is the case. Or if it is, the type of pleasure is so nuanced it is really not a good term for it. And pain too is misleading — Coben

I never used pleasure and pain and if I did I didn't intend to. I don't need to appeal to hedonism. I said "do you know your child will find their life Worthwhile? No". To elaborate, do you know for sure that your child will have a system of value that he himself finds satisfaction in, be that hedonism or whatever you're doing? No. You don't. So it's still a risk. There is a chance your child becomes miserable by his own standards and finds no meaning in any of it

An antinatalist wants life to stop — Coben

No. That is a side effect. An antinatalist simply doesn't want to risk others' wellbeing for his own. An antinatalist would never murder. Because murder is taking away something from someone. However an antinatalist will never have kids because that risks harm (which he finds immoral to give others) and only has a chance of making a good life (which he doesn't owe anyone)

I think the universe is better with life and as far as I can see most life agrees — Coben

Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think

In its seeking out more life — Coben

The fact that life seeks more life doesn't mean life is enjoyable or worthwhile or whatever value you want to measure it by. We evolved to reproduce not to have fun or whatever that value you measure by. Look at cattle. They reproduce as much as they can despite miserable farm conditions.

But the antinatalist talks about consent, when they try to convince life that life is bad and should not have been — Coben

An antinatalist doesn't necessarily try to convince that life is bad, but that propagating it is risky for no good reason. You can he as satisfied with your life or as miserable as you want, that doesn't justify causing everyone to go through the same experiences. You don't owe anyone a good life but you owe them not harming them. It would be great if you gave me money, but you don't have to, however it would be wrong for you to hurt me for no reason. And it would still be wrong if you gave me a mixed bag like "I'll beat you but I'll give you a 100" without my consent. That's what life is, a mixed bag

Where did they get the consent to try to end all future life — Coben

You don't owe future life it's existence. Or else it would be a moral imperitive to have as many kids as humanly possible and I think we can both agree that's ridiculous. You do however owe everyone not taking risks that might hurt them without their consent.

But, one has to realize the inherent illogicality of this whole rationale, being that how can one ad hoc provide reasons for not wanting to continue suffering in the world for an entity that has never experienced anything at all? — Wallows

I hear this so often but it's really not that hard to get. Antinatalism doesn't want to protect magic ghost babies from harm. It wants to protect real people from harm. Course of action A: have birth, results in harming someone therefore it is immoral. Course of action B: don't have birth doesn't harm anyone therefore it is better. That's all. Or to be more specific, course of action A guarantees harm that is not asked for while course of action B only denies potential people pleasure which isn't a bad thing because you don't owe anyone pleasure, refer to my last comment.

Is it wrong to poison someone? Why? No one is getting harmed right as the poison is being administered, they're harmed afterwards. An actions is moral or immoral depending on it's consequences EXTENDED THROUGH time not just right now. Or else placing bear traps would not be wrong

People who exist are capable of granting or withholding consent, aren't they? — Terrapin Station

Yes

I hear this so often but it's really not that hard to get. Antinatalism doesn't want to protect magic ghost babies from harm. It wants to protect real people from harm. Course of action A: have birth, results in harming someone therefore it is immoral. Course of action B: don't have birth doesn't harm anyone therefore it is better. That's all. Or to be more specific, course of action A guarantees harm that is not asked for while course of action B only denies potential people pleasure which isn't a bad thing because you don't owe anyone pleasure, refer to my last comment. — khaled

You haven't yet demonstrated (for the above in any way to be a sound argument) that existence is necessarily suffering.

You haven't yet demonstrated (for the above in any way to be a sound argument) that existence is necessarily suffering. — Wallows

I don't need to. I need to demonstrate it's a risk of suffering. Which it obviously is. Have you ever suffered? Yes. Can your children suffer? Yes. Therefore having children risks harming someone therefore don't have kids. I thought we got over this when you said that unlike most antinatalists I don't take life to be suffering which is true, I don't. Life is a mixed bag of suffering and pleasure and it's wrong to give people these mixed bags without their consent.

Life is a mixed bag of suffering and pleasure and it's wrong to give people these mixed bags without their consent. — khaled

The illogicality is really showing here. How can you ask for consent from a fictitious straw-baby?

The illogicality is really showing here. How can you ask for consent from a fictitious straw-baby? — Wallows

You can't. That's why you don't assume it. In the same way that you can't ask for consent from people that WILL go to a public park because you don't know who they are and yet we can agree it is wrong to place bear traps in said park. It would still be wrong to put those bear traps there even if you filled the whole park with money for people to pick up. Giving people money is generous and good for them but you don't have obligation to do it. Filling the park with bear traps on the other hand, risks harming someone and so it is immoral even though you don't know who that someone is and you can't ask them for consent beforehand.

If consent is not available it should be assumed that it is not given. That's how consent works. Unfortunately most people have some sort of cognitive dissonance that makes reproduction a special case to this rule. If you can't ask for consent you don't have it

No because I didn't force them to read it. Unlike with children who you force into this world. — khaled

IOW you're not especially effective at spreading the ideas, but you know people are curious, especially philosophers, and presumably hope that they will read it. So either you think what you are doing is futile, or you don't really care about consent. So, it's either a strange activity or less directly going against consent. And either way, any person you convince will not have the consent of children who will no longer get born. Your values will keep them from living. What if they would have preferred to?

Then it's not your responsibility. It's not your responsibility to make someone happier, but to not make them suffer more — khaled

Who says? That's sounds like you thinking your values are objective.

I believe inaction should never be morally punishable. — khaled

Ibid.

I never used pleasure and pain and if I did I didn't intend to. I don't need to appeal to hedonism. I said "do you know your child will find their life Worthwhile? No". To elaborate, do you know for sure that your child will have a system of value that he himself finds satisfaction in, be that hedonism or whatever you're doing? No. You don't. So it's still a risk. There is a chance your child becomes miserable by his own standards and finds no meaning in any of it — khaled

There's a chance that your ideas will lead to the cessation of all life. The implications of antinatallism are that no one should be alive after we all reach natural deaths. What if that's an atrocity for all the life that would have happened?

No. That is a side effect. An antinatalist simply doesn't want to risk others' wellbeing for his own — khaled

But you are. If you are effective in your polemic there will never be well being again.

Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think — khaled

I know the developing world well having lived there half my life. I see people choosing to live, their children choosing to live and resisting having their lives ended with great passion, perhaps even more than in the pampered West. I have no denials about suffering and how horrible life can be, but I see life wanting life and fighting to keep it despite conditions. I see no basis at all to say that people in developing nations wish they'd never been born. There are people who feel this way, but not in general. If you were effective you would end all sentient life. And all future generations would not come to be without their consent.

The fact that life seeks more life doesn't mean life is enjoyable or worthwhile or whatever value you want to measure it by. — khaled

Nor does it mean that you somehow have the consent of future generations to try to eliminate their coming into being with what is basically a massive guilt trip based on anti-life.

Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think — khaled

I missed this. Again, there is a pleasure/pain analysis implict in your position, even if you do not say it outright. This is you presuming you can measure, with your values, what people should think the measure of life is.

An antinatalist doesn't necessarily try to convince that life is bad, but that propagating it is risky for no good reason — khaled

According to your values that include an anti-pain hedonism, since you think you can dismiss my opinions since I come from the West.

You don't owe future life it's existence. — khaled

I never said I did. I am not saying any person must procreate. I was pointing out the problems with your position if it is effectively argued.

You do however owe everyone not taking risks that might hurt them without their consent. — khaled

Then you are violating your own rule. And note the word 'hurt'. Pleasure pain is how you measure life. I see people, in both the developing world and elsewhere valuing life in much more complicated ways, of wanting to live anyway, of finding value even when there is struggle and pain. Meaning, love, creating, small successes, curiosity....there are so many things that keep people living and wanting to live. I see not the slightest indication they would prefer someone had decided not to risk their being allive.

If you are even slightl effective with your rhetoric, you are making some few parents feel bad and guilty about having brought their children into the world. That is a risk you take without their consent. If you are extremely effective, you may be ending all future sentient life. If a scientist antinatalist is influenced by your rhetoric, he might invent a tool to eliminate future generations.

We all take risks. Doctors take risks inventing drugs for children. It's true that once these drugs are made, some few children might die of the side effects while many others are saved. those children could not consent. I cannot see that doctor's work as per se immoral.

Most children will show they consent retroactively.

In your eyes, to live one must be perfect. Well, let me tell you, each time your write, each time you leave your apartment and do anything, you risk that your actions will cause harm without the other person's consent. Perhaps you will accidently drive and cause an accident. That accident would not have happened if you didn't leave your house. So presumably you don't drive. Because your actions might cause a death without the other's consent. And that will cause their families harm at the very least. But then even pedestrians can cause harm. And whatever job you have.

But I will bet you take risks everyday. Trying to be responsible, no doubt. But still your continued existence entails actions that might lead to to serious harm. yet, you continue to live.

Perhaps you will argue that your parents will feel bad if you die, but my guess is even if they pass you will continue to live. And you could have cut off relations with all others to minimize their loving you and being sad if you were gone.

Of course a lot of parents would suffer if they don't get grandkids. And a women who loves you might suffer.

we are not perfect, but life wants to continue. With great passion. There is a seed of hatred of life in anti-natalism, and trust me I have a lot of sympathy for that hatred. A lot. Despite my having been born int he West, I went through repeated trauma as a child. I am glad someone like you did not convince my parents to never have let me live. Because I do not share your values system. And I hope you do not undermine the coming existence of children, the vast majority of whom do not either.

IOW you're not especially effective at spreading the ideas, but you know people are curious, especially philosophers, and presumably hope that they will read it. — Coben

That is still their choice not mine. I gave them consent to read my comment and they did. They didn't have to. And besides, by spreading my ideas I might stop one person from having children which will save generations of pain so that's a positive. Overall, my comment can cause just as much suffering as wellbeing and it's their choice to read it in the first place. Their curiosity is not my fault

And either way, any person you convince will not have the consent of children who will no longer get born — Coben

Do you understand what consent means? You need consent when

A: You want to do something you think might harm someone
B: You're not sure if they would be ok with the risk or not

There is no such thing as "consent to stop life". That's like me saying "I give you consent not to give me money". Starting life and giving money to someone are both ways of IMPROVING current status of someone not deteriorating it therefore you don't need consent to do or not do those things (give money/life). Do you think I can say "I withdraw my consent to you not to give me money, so you owe me money now"? Do you think that makes sense?

Who says? That's sounds like you thinking your values are objective. — Coben

I'm not but I think you'd agree with what I said. Or else you wouldn't be typing here because you'd be too busy fulfilling your apparent moral obligation to donate to charities all the time until perfect equality has been established. As I said, I think we can both agree that improving someone's state of affairs is good but not necessary while deteriorating it is bad and necessary to avoid. If you have an alternative I'd be happy to hear it

Ibid — Coben

?

What if that's an atrocity for all the life that would have happened? — Coben

Then too bad. You don't owe future life it's existence. Just like you don't owe every human all of your money until equality has been established. Neither of us thinks that this would be an atrocity so why pose the question? If you truly think not having children is an atrocity against someone then you're commiting an atrocity right now by typing this as you're wasting time that could be used to have more children

Nor does it mean that you somehow have the consent of future generations to try to eliminate their coming into being with what is basically a massive guilt trip based on anti-life. — Coben

Again, I don't need consent here. Hey, you aren't donating money to me are you? Oi that's not fair, I didn't give you consent NOT to donate money to me. Now give me money. I don't think this line of thinking works do you?

Also, again, you're wasting precious time typing instead of having kids which means you're having less kids than you can which means you're going against the consent of future generations right?

But you are. If you are effective in your polemic there will never be well being again. — Coben

Tell me exactly who is HARMED by me NOT having children. I said HARMED not denied improvement in state of affairs because those are different things as I've been trying to explain. Who was once happy and is now sad that I didn't have children?

I missed this. Again, there is a pleasure/pain analysis implict in your position, even if you do not say it outright. This is you presuming you can measure, with your values, what people should think the measure of life is. — Coben

Lol YOU started making pleasure and pain analysis when you said that most life prefers more life and is happy, not me. I don't like this way of arguing either

I see not the slightest indication they would prefer someone had decided not to risk their being allive. — Coben

See this here is the core of the issue. The decision ISN'T YOURS. It doesn't matter if only very few people would have preferred not being alive, they can't take the risk for someone else. That's like me saying "I'm going to take your bank account without your consent and I'm going to invest all your savings in this business most people say is a good investment capisce?". Obviously you would object to that wouldn't you?

I never said I did. I am not saying any person must procreate — Coben

Except thats exactly what you did. What right do you have to eliminate the lives of your future generations (you said this not me)? You must procreate by your own logic

That is a risk you take without their consent. — Coben

They read the user terms and rules for this site and consented to reading my specific comment by opening it

If a scientist antinatalist is influenced by your rhetoric, he might invent a tool to eliminate future generations. — Coben

Then he would be misunderstanding the core argument. It is simply this: You don't owe anyone to improve their lives but you owe them not to make it worse. Killing someone unwillingly is drastically making their life worse (because they didn't want to die obviously). So an antinatalist scientist would never make a weapon like that

We all take risks. Doctors take risks inventing drugs for children. It's true that once these drugs are made, some few children might die of the side effects while many others are saved — Coben

Yes but ask those children if they want to take a risky drug or die terribly and all of them would prefer the drug. You have CONSENT from these people. One the other hand doctor's can't just administer random drugs to people in their food can they? We can agree to that. Why not? Because the doctors don't have CONSENT in the latter case. Idk what you're talking about when you say "those children cannot consent" of course they can

In your eyes, to live one must be perfect. Well, let me tell you, each time your write, each time you leave your apartment and do anything, you risk that your actions will cause harm without the other person's consent — Coben

Yes but I must do that to survive myself. You don't HAVE to have kids. Heck you can even adopt if you really want to be a parent. If I hole up in my apartment I myself will suffer severely. In addition, me suffering severely won't help anyone so whether I leave my apartment or not doesn't impact anyone but myself. In that case I'm allowed to leave my apartment.

So presumably you don't drive. Because your actions might cause a death without the other's consent. — Coben

No. You consent to the small chance of dying of accidents when you decide to use public roads. You know the risk involved with using them yet you do. In the case of having children, an unborn child never agreed to even put himself in a position of danger and you propose putting him there for no good reason (I don't drive but that's beside the point)

Perhaps you will argue that your parents will feel bad if you die, but my guess is even if they pass you will continue to live. And you could have cut off relations with all others to minimize their loving you and being sad if you were gone.

Of course a lot of parents would suffer if they don't get grandkids. And a women who loves you might suffer. — Coben

See ALL of this suffering? It's a lot right. And I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to alleviate themselves from it. As long as they don't cause THE EXACT same suffering on the future generation which is exactly what reproduction does. All the pain that comes with not having a kid is an argument FOR antinatalism not against it. YOUR pain doesn't justify harming someone else, especially when your literal only reason for subjecting someone to EVERY HARM IMAGINABLE is that you'd feel lonely without grandkids. I'd get stealing when you're starving, but this just can't pass

we are not perfect, but life wants to continue. With great passion. There is a seed of hatred of life in anti-natalism — Coben

Yes this is all true and it is not an argument.

Because I do not share your values system — Coben

Do you know your child will share yours for sure? No. So why are you taking a risk by bringing someone here who you know might hate it for no good reason?


PS: I don't get why everyone thinks I am using a pleasure pain analysis when I am explicitly trying to avoid those words. Instead I use "improve" or "deteriorate" state of affairs which is understandable under ANY value system. The point is: You don't owe anyone improving their state of affairs but you owe them not to worsen it. I think anyone with any value system would agree to that

Sure. So consent is an issue with respect to people who exist as they go into a park and what they encounter there.

sure.

We like it here. It's worth it. — T Clark

That is fine. But it is a weak reason to bring someone onto this world. Or, in other words, create someone in this world.

Antinatalism doesn't create this fictional identity called an unborn child. It only looks at the possibility of having an offspring. It says, not to use this possibility or not to take this chance of creating an offspring as it is a negative thing to do.

Antinatalism doesn't create this fictional identity called an unborn child. — Charles

It does create a straw-baby though, which can't consent/agree/vouch with or for their own life, though.

it doesn't have to. Ok forget about consent

Course of action A: have children
Result: Someone is harmed or risked harm for no good reason

Course of action B: don't have children
Result: No one is harmed or risked harm

So why do you you still want course of action B do you mind explaining? If I had replaced the actual course of action to, say:

A:bet with someone else's money behind their back and

B: don't bet with someone else's money behind their back

Even though both courses of action in this case have the same result as the original, I'm sure you would have objected to course of action A. Why do you make a special case for procreation?

The only reason I was using consent is just for real life analogies. It works like this (I'm sure we can agree): if you are about to improve someone's state of affairs (however you mean that, either hedonistically or otherwise) you don't need consent but you don't have to do it. If you are about to deteriorate someone's state of affairs or risk doing so you need consent. Have children is the latter and there is no one you can get consent from so it is wrong to have children, just like the park example.

But more importantly, why is it wrong to hide bear traps in a public park? Who exactly is harmed by this action? You don't know do you? So does that mean that to say placing bear traps in a park is wrong creates fictitious straw-parkgoers?

If one considers life to be either positive or negative, from a purely logical standpoint, I would like an explanation. As far as anyone can really tell, life happens, a brief explosion of something, before fading into nothing again at the end. There may be happiness or suffering, but those things are temporary chemical changes and have no intrinsic value. Once the person is dead, no good or bad is left, as those things are opinions, and opinions require living.

The fact that you will be dead much longer than you will be alive doesn't justify me commiting atrocities onto you does it? We can both agree to that.

Once the person is dead, no good or bad is left, as those things are opinions, and opinions require living. — Neir

And antinatalism is an attempt at showing people that the only logical conclusion to the opinions they hold (most of them) is that procreation is wrong. It IS just another opinion but I believe it is the most universal, as all the premise it needs is: it is wrong to harm or risk harm onto others for no good reason (however you interpret harm)

Which everyone should agree to by their own definitions of harm.

Why are you typing here? Even though whatver point you're trying to make won't matter after everyone dies. It doesn't matter that all of this is just opinion, that won't dissuade anyone from thinking it is important as proven by the fact that you yourself found it important enough to type here

Course of action B: don't have children
Result: No one is harmed or risked harm — khaled

What about the people who really want to have children? Aren't they affected by not having them?