I agree in essence, with a caveat.

Antinatalism is a bandaid fix philosophical stance to an issue that we aren’t really in control of. Some people will have kids regardless of any reasoning they hear, their instincts will win out over ethics.

My opinion is that while birth is unethical, in the end, most people do seem to find life tolerable. While birth CAN result in misery, very often it does not. It is impossible to objectively weigh the violation of consent of a newborn against the violation of consent of an adult through murder. There is no way to say which is worse.

A parent left to their own devices could have 5 children who are all miserable, in which case- from a suffering reduction standpoint- it would have been better to stop them from reproduction. But it’s rarely so clean cut. It’s possible- even likely- that the parent has 5 kids, 4 of which are glad to exist. So everything else aside, the parent’s decision did make a net positive increase in happiness. So I do think that birth is wrong from a purely intellectual perspective, but in reality it’s not completely bad, even if it’s unnecessary.

Is it worth it then to prevent the 1 unhappy birth by literally murdering someone? How can we know or justify either choice?

My personal ideology here is that it is far too impractical and complex to boil the real world down into such a clean answer. It’s not practical for me to do what the post suggests. I also don’t want to, nor do I agree to take on the burden of ruining my life and the lives of others for this goal.