The answer is to get better at protecting the innocent despite white noise protestations — universeness

This is all that's needed. Unless you don't mind YOU yourself, don't mind causing unnecessary harm to others, no other contingencies are needed. And certainly you can agree life itself is going to be full of harm. It is a known fact..entailed in life itself. That fact however, doesn't make it right, it makes it a reason to not do something to someone else.. Just like any other case where if you know it will harm, and it is unnecessary to do so, you wouldn't do it. Unnecessary being the key here. No one NEEDS to be unnecessarily harmed. Adding (because I want to see X) would add to the wrongness, because besides having no reason, you are now using a person for your preference to see something or an agenda beyond the person affected from the harm.

I also might add, being overly paternalistic is also a factor to consider. To think that because you think this life we have in this universe is somehow a good one, that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. You are making a decision on someone else's behalf that THESE conditions of life are perfectly fine for others to have to endure. Simply because one can't have a choice to endure this life, doesn't mean "Oh, ok, this be permissible to make someone endure because this is the only thing to endure". That doesn't go together. The only choice is compliance with sub-optimal conditions or suicide if they don't like it. A terrible thing to do to someone, and again, paternalistically arrogant to think that this should be done to someone else. That beyond all the harm that will incur to someone is enough to disqualify procreation being considered neutral or good.

Just like any other case where if you know it will harm, and it is unnecessary to do so, you wouldn't do it. — schopenhauer1

What is "unnecessary"?

Is refusing oneself the satisfaction of one's ego "unnecessary"?

Based on what evidence? The technologies created by scientists are open to abuse by the nefarious and by self-interest or just incompetent decisions made by those in power. — universeness

Not at all. Already the "regular" use of scientific achievements is what causes pollution. Plastic waste is plastic waste, regardless whether produced by an honest, hardworking man or by a glutton.

Again, keep to the text:
— baker

Again, try to improve your clarity.

Look up a textbook for learning English, under the chapter "Giving short replies".

The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life.
— baker
Do you consider such people a large majority of the global population?

Yes. Look up the DSM; "a religious problem" and other existential issues are actually listed as signs of mental illness.

We live in very imbalanced rich/poor conditions. It is harsh to judge the aspiration level of any individual who has had poverty imposed upon them since birth and very limited or no opportunity to escape it.

Having relatively low aspirations in life has nothing directly to do with poverty. There is plenty of very rich, very educated people who nevertheless have relatively low aspirations in life. Their aim is the pursuit of sensual pleasures in their various forms, and that's it.

I assume you are not female.

Why do you assume that?

No woman I know has ever raised any concern about such.

Because they know that for a woman, it is best to be a fool, a beautiful little fool.

So even they spell it as "as a women, I ..."

I also might add, being overly paternalistic is also a factor to consider. To think that because you think this life we have in this universe is somehow a good one, that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. — schopenhauer1

It is just as arrogant to suggest this life we have in this universe is somehow a bad one and we should prevent anyone living it.
We have purpose, we ask questions. We need comparators in life to be able to differentiate. We are of the universe. Suffering must exist for us to work against it. You are suggesting we harm the universe by not existing anymore. How will the what, why, and how of the universe ever be answered, if nothing exists which is able to ask the questions? YOUR arrogance is what you should be concerned about as you would remove from the universe that which enhances it's purpose.
But you are an insignificant force and cannot stop the questions. Learn from any suffering that comes your way, do your best to prevent or alleviate the suffering of others and become part of the solution instead of what you are now, part of the problem

that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. You are making a decision on someone else's behalf that THESE conditions of life are perfectly fine for others to have to endure. — schopenhauer1

We are a product of the natural process of evolution and natural selection and you are trying to anthropomorphise morality into that process. At the moment we cant say much more than, were here because were here because were here because were here. Stop crying about the journey. You dont want everything to be just perfect for you as you would never experience achievement or have any purpose. Enjoy the wonderful adventure of life. Don't be a wee misanthrope who keeps complaining about the existence of suffering, FOCUS on helping alleviate it.
Stop recommending that we should harm the universe by refusing to exist within it.
Don't be so scared of life, don't be a coward!
I lay before thee, life and the curse, therefore choose life so thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.
Even atheists like me can find some use in theistic style prose.

Not at all. Already the "regular" use of scientific achievements is what causes pollution. Plastic waste is plastic waste, regardless whether produced by an honest, hardworking man or by a glutton — baker

Plastic being dumped as cheaply as possible into the oceans etc is the main cause of plastic pollution and that is done by nefarious profiteers. You need to probe deeper to understand the true causes of our bad ecological stewardship of the planet.

Look up a textbook for learning English, under the chapter "Giving short replies". — baker

Now now, try to keep your big boy pants on. Don't try to intimidate as you are about as intimidating as a tiptoe through the tulips!

Yes. Look up the DSM; "a religious problem" and other existential issues are actually listed as signs of mental illness — baker

Do you suffer from such yourself?

Having relatively low aspirations in life has nothing directly to do with poverty. There is plenty of very rich, very educated people who nevertheless have relatively low aspirations in life. Their aim is the pursuit of sensual pleasures in their various forms, and that's it — baker

Please tell me you don't hold any positions of authority!

I assume you are not female.

Why do you assume that? — baker

Because I can.

Because they know that for a woman, it is best to be a fool, a beautiful little fool. — baker

Are you speaking as a beautiful little fool or is that just one of the 'high aspirations,' you currently favour?

*sigh*

Deep, slow breaths, in and out. You'll be fine!

Misogyny at its finest.

Misogyny at its finest. — baker

So stop being misogynistic! Keep your aspirations high!

Just to give a more direct answer to your laboriously hyped question. NO, I don't think innocent people deserve harm — universeness

It's a very simply question. Your answer is 'no'.

So that means that all the harm they suffer is undeserved. That means it is unjust.

Don't then just blurt stuff that doesn't in any way engage with the argument. Saying something doesn't make it true.

Another question for you - see if you can just answer it rather than blather on about unrelated matters.

If an act will create great injustices that another person will suffer, does that imply that it is wrong to do it, other things being equal?

Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe? — universeness

Er, no. What a silly question. The universe is not a person. Do you think the universe has feelings? Do you think the universe is a bit miffed today? Do trees talk to you?

'Deserve,' is a judgment call, a human judgment call that probably has no relevance outside of humans and lifeforms like them. — universeness

Bollocks. So, your view is that if enough of us judge you do deserve to die, then you do? And if enough people judge that members of a racial or sexual minority deserve to die, then they do? Absurd. Think it through!

We make 'judgements' about whether a person deserves blame or not. That does not mean that whether a person deserves blame or not is determined by our judgements. That's obviously fallacious. Yet that'll be your only argument for thinking that moral desert is collectively subjective. It isn't.

Whether a person deserves harm or not is not a matter our judgements determine, rather it is a matter we make judgements 'about'.

And it has nothing to do with humans. It has everything to do with persons or minds. A newly created Spock would not deserve to come to harm either, even though he's not human. Persons - subjects of experience, minds - do not deserve to come to harm (not until or unless they have free will and use it to do terrible things), regardless of what kind of body they're encased in.

It is just as arrogant to suggest this life we have in this universe is somehow a bad one and we should prevent anyone living it. — universeness

But alas, this isn't what is happening. Since no one is actually harmed from being prevented, there is no actual foul for any person in this case. Besides which, if you can't know what someone would want, or even begin to understand the complex desires, personality, and makeup of someone who will be born when they develop into an autonomous adult, it is quite the opposite of arrogant as no one is actually making a judgement call on behalf of another.

But you are an insignificant force and cannot stop the questions. Learn from any suffering that comes your way, do your best to prevent or alleviate the suffering of others and become part of the solution instead of what you are now, part of the problem — universeness

Sorry, but antinatalism is not CREATING problems for OTHERS which causes a person to thus deal with those problems. This is gaslighting 101. I'm sure you aren't intentional with with your gaslighting, but that's what you are doing and promoting. You don't create problems and then say "YOU" are the problem because you don't believe in creating messes for other people to deal with.

We are a product of the natural process of evolution and natural selection and you are trying to anthropomorphise morality into that process. — universeness

This is the naturalistic fallacy. Being a product of nature, and intentionally following an ethic because it is seen as "natural" are two different things.. If that is what you are getting at..

. At the moment we cant say much more than, were here because were here because were here because were here. — universeness

Actually it's quite easy to not put other people in the "here" thing.. Just don't put them here (procreate). It's something we can do.. Unlike shitting, or eating, it's a process that is completely based on decisions and actions that are not inevitable.

Stop crying about the journey. You dont want everything to be just perfect for you as you would never experience achievement or have any purpose. — universeness

But I would never create a situation of harm for people JUST so they can overcome it and feel achievement. That itself is paternalistic aggression and not good.

Enjoy the wonderful adventure of life. — universeness

Everything is not an adventure. A lot of things are baked in the "situatedness of life" and are not positive. We can't will it away or ignore it either. It's things we are FORCED to deal with ONCE BORN.

Stop recommending that we should harm the universe by refusing to exist within it. — universeness

Now who is anthropomorphizing? The universe can't be "harmed", and certainly by simply "not procreating".

Don't be so scared of life, don't be a coward! — universeness

Now you are just giving an example of a common cultural trope to reign people in who see things clearly about the inevitable harms and negative situations we must deal with and endure.

I lay before thee, life and the curse, therefore choose life so thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.
Even atheists like me can find some use in theistic style prose. — universeness

I prefer song lyrics.

So that means that all the harm they suffer is undeserved. That means it is unjust. — Bartricks

No, you conflate and project 'undeserved' with 'unjust,' a point that has already been made to you many times on this thread but you are too chiseled to understand.

Don't then just blurt stuff that doesn't in any way engage with the argument. — Bartricks

Yeah, you should stop doing that.

Saying something doesn't make it true. — Bartricks

I am glad to see you make some progress. You realise that because you type something that doesn't make it true. Well done you!

Another question for you - see if you can just answer it rather than blather on about unrelated matters. — Bartricks

Now, now, have a wee meditative session before you type each sentence and you may gain more control over your tiny tantrums and little schisms. Go help someone in your local area who is suffering rather than just bleat because you are not able to progress your viewpoint in any useful way.

If an act will create great injustices that another person will suffer, does that imply that it is wrong to do it, other things being equal? — Bartricks

Like most of your questions, this is a big, cumbersome, poorly formed one that your shallow thought processes present to you as requiring only a yes/no answer. If the justice the act creates outweighs the 'great injustices,' you claim it causes, then my answer would be No it does not imply it's wrong to do it. Do you think putting a junkie through the pain and horror of 'cold turkey,' to save their life is unjustified?

Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe?
— universeness

Er, no. What a silly question. The universe is not a person. Do you think the universe has feelings? Do you think the universe is a bit miffed today? Do trees talk to you? — Bartricks

What a stupid response! A clear demonstration of how shallow your thinking is. We are OF the universe so yes it has feelings through us, as it has purpose through us. Purpose that your dimwitted antinatalism seeks to harm. You sound permanently miffed, maybe you should spend some time just hugging tree's, it might help you to hug something/anything more often.

Bollocks. — Bartricks

Yeah, try growing some!

So, your view is that if enough of us judge you do deserve to die, then you do? — Bartricks

Another of your clumsy questions which ignores the vital details and naunces involved. Try to think a little deeper. For example, what REALLY matters is I can kill and a group can decide that another must die. Who was justified in doing what is normally postscript and can even be reviewed and reviewed again over time. All that matters in the case of the individual facing such a situation is will they get killed or can they or other interested parties prevent it.

And it has nothing to do with humans. It has everything to do with persons or minds. — Bartricks

Minds make decisions as a main function. Harm is an interpretation. Hunger is harmful and it is best to have a balanced control over it by learning. Too much sating of hunger can be harmful and satisfying a deep hunger can be a very enjoyable experience.
Innocent children, babies, (or anyone) starving to death, in a world, which is capable of feeding everyone is the fault of all humans. The solution is better human decision making not idiotic antinatalism.
You just seem a little obsessed with the concept of harm and you have jumped to a ridiculous solution, which you have tried to defend in such a chiseled way that you cannot find your way out. So you are becoming part of the background white noise. Which is where antinatalism resides and where good people will make sure it stays.

it is quite the opposite of arrogant as no one is actually making a judgement call on behalf of another. — schopenhauer1

Not true as you advocate for 'prevention' of conscious/sentient lifeforms which can be harmed despite the fact such gives purpose to the universe. Such advocation is indeed arrogant as well as stupid.

Sorry, but antinatalism is not CREATING problems for OTHERS which causes a person to thus deal with those problems. — schopenhauer1

Have you not noticed that the problem you are having with antinatalism, is having to be addressed by the members of this forum. I would rather be discussing ideas to improve the human experience than having to spend time trying to help you with your skewed thinking. Yes, I know that's arrogant but I also think it's true. Do the world a favour and stop being such a morose misanthrope.

This is the naturalistic fallacy. Being a product of nature, and intentionally following an ethic because it is seen as "natural" are two different things.. If that is what you are getting at.. — schopenhauer1

You suffer from fallacy obsession as many do. My point was there is no moral imperative in the process of our origins. Evolution and natural selection has no moral driver. The harm caused by natural selection has no moral driver. I was not suggesting we follow that example on how we apply morality within human civilisations. I am suggesting that the origins of 'birth' or 'life' has no moral driver and thus is not associated with the morality of harm or suffering.

it's a process that is completely based on decisions and actions that are not inevitable. — schopenhauer1

Nature compels procreation, it's why it makes heterosexual males fervently attracted to females and makes heterosexual females fervently attracted to males. Do you think your infinitesimal antinatalism can compete. :rofl:

But I would never create a situation of harm for people JUST so they can overcome it and feel achievement. That itself is paternalistic aggression and not good. — schopenhauer1

You don't have to, providence will provide! Just deal with it when it comes your way and help others do the same. Don't stay a misanthrope.

Now who is anthropomorphizing? The universe can't be "harmed", and certainly by simply "not procreating". — schopenhauer1

Of course it can, I am not anthropomorphising, we are OF the universe, that is FACT.
If we are removed from it then the universe will be harmed/diminished, especially if it turns out that we are the only lifeform in the universe with our level of cognitive ability. Even if there are others, we may still be incredibly rare. To advocate antinatalism is therefore highly irresponsible and reckless, if not just plain stupid.

I prefer song lyrics. — schopenhauer1

Easy to turn such into song lyrics. You don't want to go gospel music so perhaps thrash metal!

Not true as you advocate for 'prevention' of conscious/sentient lifeforms which can be harmed despite the fact such gives purpose to the universe. — universeness

Giving purpose to the universe literally doesn't make sense to me. The universe is not a "thing" to give "purpose to". Humans might feel a sense of purpose, not the universe.

Do the world a favour and stop being such a morose misanthrope. — universeness

Non-sequitor and ad hom.

Evolution and natural selection has no moral driver. — universeness

I can agree with you there...

I am suggesting that the origins of 'birth' or 'life' has no moral driver and thus is not associated with the morality of harm or suffering. — universeness

This doesn't make sense to me. The "origins of birth" is not a disembodied thing, but a decision/action made on one person on behalf of another and indeed is laden with values about what should or should not be done and how we view harms.

Nature compels procreation, it's why it makes heterosexual males fervently attracted to females and makes heterosexual females fervently attracted to males. Do you think your infinitesimal antinatalism can compete. :rofl: — universeness

Being attracted to someone is a complex phenomenon shaped by genes, development, and to a large extent cultural expectations. That is another debate though. That is not the question at hand. Being attracted to someone and thus procreating with them are two different things, even if they are related. Certainly you can make a case that people choose to be unthinking in regards to procreation and simply do what is pleasurable without forethought, but that is not a claim on the morality of procreation, just pointing out a fact of people's poor decision-making.

Of course it can, I am not anthropomorphising, we are OF the universe, that is FACT.
If we are removed from it then the universe will be harmed/diminished, especially if it turns out that we are the only lifeform in the universe with our level of cognitive ability. Even if there are others, we may still be incredibly rare. To advocate antinatalism is therefore highly irresponsible and reckless, if not just plain stupid. — universeness

We owe the universe and the "species" nothing.. "They" are not entities that have the capacity to be owed. A category error.

We are OF the universe so yes it has feelings through us, as it has purpose through us. — universeness

So, you think that if a thinking thing is in the universe, then the universe also thinks? I am in my underpants. Therefore my underpants think.

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that the universe itself has a mind and has desires and so on. How does that affect my argument?

Focus on the argument. You do that by first assessing whether the argument is valid. Then - and only then - you move on to assessing the premises.

And if there's a premise that you think is false, don't just say that. Your opinions count for nothing unless they're backed by reason. So, show that a premise is false - or show that there is a reasonable doubt about it anyway - by showing how the negation of that premise follows from premises that appear self-evidently true.

Then thank me for teaching you how to reason like a boss, as opposed to just saying stuff.

Giving purpose to the universe literally doesn't make sense to me. — schopenhauer1

Fair enough. It makes sense to me. We are all made of the same raw materials, all of which are natural and of the universe. We all ask questions. When we ask questions such as 'why /how/what/ are we, we are imo synonymously asking why/how/what is the universe, Creatures such as us must continue to exist to ask such questions or else the universe is harmed. Antinatalism is therefore misguided imo.

Non-sequitor and ad hom. — schopenhauer1

Just trying to shake you from your depressing viewpoint and your support of what I consider to be an obnoxious immoral viewpoint (antinatalism.) It is an emotive issue.

This doesn't make sense to me. The "origins of birth" is not a disembodied thing, but a decision/action made on one person on behalf of another and indeed is laden with values about what should or should not be done and how we view harms. — schopenhauer1

No, birth is a PROCESS, its origin is evolutionary. It's the natural process of how newborn humans are brought into the world. The process stands separate from any morality based on the OP's suggestion of a violation of innocence. The natural processes involved in creating and birthing a human have no moral driver. I agree that two humans deciding to begin the process have questions of morality associated with it. The processes which occur after sex have no moral driver. The process of birth has no moral driver. BUT harm/suffering can occur during these processes. YOU and @Bartricks are suggesting that moral imperatives should be applied to processes with no moral driver. A tiny number of babies die in the womb. According to the OP, this would be a violation of an innocent and therefore this harm/suffering supports antinatalism. This is an example/consequence of the skewed logic antinatalism engages in and exemplifies how ridiculous the OP is.

Being attracted to someone is a complex phenomenon shaped by genes, development, and to a large extent cultural expectations. That is another debate though. That is not the question at hand. — schopenhauer1

No, it's very much related to the question at hand. Antinatalism is a moral choice against a system with no moral driver. Reproduction within species is natural priority NUMBER 1. Most species will see males fight to the death sometimes to win the right to procreate with the female/females in season.
Heterosexual human males will also instinctively fight tooth and nail to win the ability to reproduce. Even many homosexual couples want to produce children through surrogacy etc.
In drama we get projections like the Vulcan 'Pon Far,' where every 7 years if a Vulcan does not reproduce then they will experience extreme physical and psychological imbalance.
This is based on the observed reproductive behaviour of many Earth species.
Antinatalism insists on ignoring all such natural imperatives :lol: (ridiculous), ignoring ALL OF THE HARM AND SUFFERING that would cause.

LIFE started on this planet by natural happenstance! and YOU advocate for phasing out that occurance before forms of that LIFE such as US, has even started to answer any of the questions regarding why it happened, what its purpose was/is etc and your reasons is that suffering exists alongside joy as a comparator. YOU and a tiny number of other skewed thinkers such as @Bartricks are trying to convince intelligent people that you are standing on moral high ground. You occupy no such position and I accuse you of being no more than morose misanthropes and you fully deserve that label no matter what complaint you make against it using the same old boring Latin BS phrases.

We owe the universe and the "species" nothing.. "They" are not entities that have the capacity to be owed. A category error — schopenhauer1

How morose and misanthropic of you to say so!

So, you think that if a thinking thing is in the universe, then the universe also thinks? I am in my underpants. Therefore my underpants think. — Bartricks

You again demonstrate your shallow thinking. You project dialogue regarding connection between individual thought and universal purpose onto your underpants thinking. You open yourself to complete ridicule.

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that the universe itself has a mind and has desires and so on. How does that affect my argument? — Bartricks

Which part of 'all human thought, can be projected as a totality which currently has limited ability to demonstrate thought as a collective but can work together in common cause and communicate in ever-increasing networked manners.' do you dispute? This affects you argument because an emergent collective panpsychism for humans cannot be part of a future in which humans don't exist Sherlock!

and if there's a premise that you think is false, don't just say that. Your opinions count for nothing unless they're backed by reason. So, show that a premise is false - or show that there is a reasonable doubt about it anyway - by showing how the negation of that premise follows from premises that appear self-evidently true.

Then thank me for teaching you how to reason like a boss, as opposed to just saying stuff. — Bartricks

I find it quite humorous that you believe that you are typing important responses here which establish 'hoops' others have to jump through or the dance steps others have to perform to argue against you using only YOUR perception of how it must be done. Again, this is laughable and delusional on your part.
You then want me to appreciate your help and you want me to see you as a 'boss.' :lol:
You remind me of a child shaking its rattle whilst its lips quiver, unhappy that it's not getting the attention/recognition it feels it deserves. It's not my fault the points you raised in the OP are so flawed and shallow in their thinking, it's your fault, It's your shallow thinking.
Any time I ever hear Donald Trump talking on TV now, I just hear a kind of overall background waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaa! coming from him. Please don't invoke the same by what you type! It's got a high cringe factor.

The suffering are sold on the idea of anitnatalism. It's the happy folks antinatalists havta convince. Question: Is a 99.99% surety that you can guarantee the well-being of your offspring acceptable? In some cases, nothing short of 100% will do, oui? Aut Cesar aut nihil The parents would need to be held accountable for the misery that their children go through! Only then will the full meaning of antinatalism sink in!

The parents would need to be held accountable for the misery that their children go through! Only then will the full meaning of antinatalism sink in! — Agent Smith

Is the child responsible for any pain/suffering/stretch-marked skin etc caused to the mother during the birth process or is it a consequence of an evolutionary process that has no inherent moral driver?

Is the child responsible for any pain/suffering/stretch-marked skin etc caused to the mother during the birth process or is it a consequence of an evolutionary process that has no inherent moral driver? — universeness

Where are the supporting documents that children chose to be born? There are none!

I can't discern any kind of rational criticism in anything you've said.

You seem to think the universe itself has desires and so on. First, even if it did, that doesn't do anything to challenge my argument. Second, the only basis upon which you think the universe has desires would also show that my underpants have desires. I conclude, then, that you are not very good at understanding or making arguments.

True. It is an argument that every human action is potentially harmful and therefore no action should be taken. — I like sushi

No it isn't. Read the OP and stop attacking dumb strawman arguments of your own invention.

The point being if you follow through the thought it is both impractical and ridiculous. — I like sushi

Argue. Read the OP. Identify the premises. Attack one. Don't just say stuff.

There is something a little clandestine in the thought that innocents deserve no harm because this kind of implies that the guilty deserve harm. — I like sushi

Clandestine? And no, it doesn't. If P implies Q, that does not mean that Q implies P. Those who have freely done wrong do deserve harm. But my argument does not depend upon that being true. It is sufficient that those who are innocent do not deserve any harm.

Then it is a question of who decides who is or is not guilty. — I like sushi

Reason. Reason decides it. If you think someone is innocent, that does not make them innocent. Think it through.

Then try and focus on the actual argument. Don't raise broader metaethical issues to do with the status of morality. My argument assumes no particular metaethical theory.

Anyway, I will continue to work on my argument for antinatalism I suggest you work on an argument against it. — I like sushi

I suggest you read the OP and try and say something that actually addresses it. Like I say, identify a premise and argue against it by showing how its negation is implied by premises more powerfully self-evident to reason than those I am appealing to.

Where are the supporting documents that children chose to be born? There are none! — Agent Smith

You know that's not a valid question. In the same way that the response 'where are the supporting documents that children did NOT choose to be born? There are also none!' is also not a valid question.

You claim all who suffer already support antinatalism

The suffering are sold on the idea of anitnatalism. — Agent Smith

I am arguing that the cause and purpose of all harm/suffering is very complex.
It can be very useful as a teacher. There are many examples where people may say such things as 'well if that had not happened to me then I would not be here helping you today' etc etc.
It may be that that which is deemed innocent does not deserve harm but labels such as 'innocent,' 'deserve,' 'harm' are products of human constructs of morality. But our origins have no moral driver unless you claim that evolution through natural selection does contain a moral driver.
That's why the theists scapegoat gods for all human suffering and project them as morally qualified to inflict any harm/suffering as they see fit based on the claim that the humans involved must have deserved it even (from Christian myth) the killing by god of Egyptian first born babies.
If the antinatalist claim is based solely on the injustice of human suffering then it is defeated straight away by the fact that harm/suffering can be caused with absolutely no intent behind it whatsoever.
We don't know why life exists in the universe, BUT IT DOES! It is stupid to suggest that human life should be prevented due to the possibility of experiencing harm when we understand so little about why it exists in the first place.
To me, it's like ancient humans deciding against attempting to gain any understanding or control over fire because it can harm you. It's just shallow, selfish, cowardly thinking.
Antinatalism is the posit that human reproduction is morally unjustifiable because of the possibility of suffering and it is based on shallow, selfish, cowardly thinking in my opinion.

Second, the only basis upon which you think the universe has desires would also show that my underpants have desires. I conclude, then, that you are not very good at understanding or making arguments. — Bartricks

Well, the above certainly does demonstrate how skewed your logic is and how your bad logic results in bad conclusions.
I am left with the image of you constantly shaking your white noise-making rattle and your quivering lips in a mode of permanent tantrum. Infantile shallow thinking is indeed the forte of the antinatalist.

and your jacked up self will probably not procreate do to your utter lack of understanding of how life is and is not.. natural selection I guess

Argue with yourself. Meaning do what I suggest. Make an argument AGAINST antinatalism and see if you can help yourself understand the opposing views given and address them properly.

Indeed, the issue is complex - there are just too many unknowns i.e. any sincere attempt at an analysis is going to end in aporia (bewilderment). The next step then is obvious - what should we assume as truth? This, if you only make the effort to notice, is an ethical question.

Also, I did mention it quite clearly in my previous post that selling antinatalism to the suffering is preaching to the choir.

It's the privileged peeps we have to work on! One way is to question their guarantees of, at a minimum, aponia (freedom from suffering) to their descendants. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that won't be 100%. If worst comes to worst, I'm willing to let the rich and powerful multiply like rabbits if they so wish to. For the poor, there's no choice.

Antinatalists, conveniently ignore, the massive harm and suffering many people would experience if they could not have children. People will turn to IVF or might even 'dump a loved partner,' because of their personal need to have a child. Are antinatalists REALLY accusing such people of being immoral?
Do they not care about how childlessness can cause great suffering for many people?