“To perceive is to suffer.”
― Aristotle

I also found this quote for you, I pretty much said the same in longform.

I can think of two:
1. You have to pay this price of suffering for existence, which should cancel out this negative morality, utility wise.
2. Birth is neutral because it contains both suffering and the ability of rising above it and gain happiness (which is your benefit). Looking only at the negative gives you a skewed perception of morality.

Since money has time value, you could make a comparison: you give a loan of 100 bucks to someone, with the understanding that they will give you 110 bucks a week from now. Is it true to say you are short of 100 bucks? Sure, if you look at your purse only. However, you also have a promise form the other fellow, that he will pay it back with interest. It's basically a contract with some risk.

You also don't have the right to choose before conception so how would you know if you want to make this deal of a "lifetime"? You could say your parents know, but you can counter argue with good will, or the inherent value of life I mentioned. Or if you believe we have no free will at all, then you could say it was an unavoidable that you would be born, and you can't assign morality to nature (your parents may even have tried everything to not have you, but you were still born somehow - this is especially true with pro life laws).

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I do think your argument is weak. It is your assumption that human behavior is due to "God". However, scientifically speaking, without first proving the existence of God, you can't assert that the effects you experience are due to God.

Also, God as a concept is not like a stone. God is like every stone, the idea of stone, and every idea ever, and everything in existence ever. It would be probably more defendable to say God is existence itself, and everything in existence is an expression of God. This is a similar assumption to science's universe, basiqually equating God to it, just with a different expression. This way God does not conflict science, nor does science conflict with God.

I think it represents the capitulation of human will in face of nature's oppression on all living beings. The cause of suffering is that we are aware of our existence. When we can't find meaning to existence despite being conscious to it, it creates a self contradiction - a "lack of meaning". Your body follows the mind in this, your brain changes itself if this is repeated. The reason we find it so terrifying is because if you have a meaning, or you still have hope of finding it, it discourages you from the chance of success, chipping away the hope. Not to mention the fact that we all will die, so there is a strong empathy we will with almost everyone who dies, even if they were considered bad. Overall, I see the inevitableness of death as the best reason not to give up hope: why hurry, when you still have time to find meaning?

There are two main sides where you could look at it from initially:

1. Deontology
Somone concerned with the intent of the action might say that if you kill an animal with good will, for example in order to sell your product and feed your family, would not be considered immoral. You raised the animals, treated them fairly, and slaughtered them with the least amount of suffering possible - which they might not even encounter in the wilderness. On the other hand, most people who point at the suffering of the animals assume that the ones doing them do it so with bad will - which is quite the assumption for such a large group of people. However, if someone has immoral or amoral intent while treating animals should be considered bad nonetheless. Which means that overall, people should be concerned with making sure that people who treat animals do so fairly and with concern for their suffering.

Here I'd like to point out that purely emotional reasons should not qualitfy on their own. One might have good intent and still feel sorry for animals killed or inseminated - even though they kill or consume animals. On the other hand, although it is true than animals have no capability of ethics, and are purely natural beings, the decision if it's a good or bad thing to kill them should not be about them at all - we need to decide how it reflects on us. Which is how we can also consider consequentialism.

2. Consequentialism

There are also claims about the consequences of not eating meat - much of which we haven't exhaustively explored as far as I know. There are three main realms: individual, economic and enviromental.

On the level of the individual you can meet the claims of health and lessening of suffering. I'd argue that we are not completely sure about the differences of consequence between vegan and omnivorous behavior. We should avoid coming to a final conclusion purely based on anecdote or correlation - although it does add to the deontological reasons against eating meat. On the other hand, there might be people who would experience a loss of well being as a consequence, increasing their suffering. Also, meat products contain a lot of things we need in a more bio avilable way - because the purely plant eating animals have a better ability to build themselves up from plants than omnivores that are able to draw on both plants and animals, but only up to a degree.

On the economic side, the meat industry allows unskilled and trade labourers to make a living. As a consequence of ban on meat eating, they might experience a serious drop in well being. On the other hand, it could be argued that they could make a living from only farming the land and producing plants. However, this would decrease the price of plants, and there would still be some people left without of jobs due to the inability for competition. Also several industries - such as fashion, food, medical etc. would experience serious changes. This step risks the loss of a lot of economic wealth.

On the side of the enviroment, animal farming draws a lot on our natural resources - plants, water, oxigen and produces co2 and methane which contribute to the greenhouse effect. They can also facilitate the spread of bacteria that might later be dangerous to humans as well. However, on the other hand the existence of these animals creates a lot of substances that could be crutial to our enviroment. The soil we would like to cultivate to grow plants is basically an amalgamation of all the dead plants and animals that ever existed. Taking out a large amount of animals and not producing more, and instead drawing more nutrients out that are needed for plants might overdraw the land too much, and we might not be able to create replenishment of the same quality to it.

I have also seen claims that "our dominion over animals is natural". This is obviously a logical fallacy, we do not completely understand what our natural behavior is. The mere fact that we can consider what is natural is supernatural. What we have to determine is how much we are able to rise above nature, and how much we are determined by it. That is where our virtue lies, and that is why this is an interesting question.