Defining Antinatalism

So, what exactly is the philosophy of antinatalism?  To start with, people choose not to have children for various reasons, but I'll be discussing the most common ethical argument against procreation, known as Philanthropic Antinatalism (This is my argument as well).  Essentially, given that suffering is an inherent part of sentient life, along with a constant vulnerability to horrific suffering, procreation is considered morally wrong given the fact that it is an imposition of suffering.  Suffering is of course held to be a bad thing according to this line of reasoning, and preventing suffering is held to be a good thing.

A common counter to this position is that even though suffering is a part of life, most people also experience pleasure/joy, so the equation is said to balance.  But I would argue that the pleasure possible for the living is not in any way relevant to the question of procreation, as the nonexistent are not being deprived of any joy.  Sentience (capacity to feel) is needed to be deprived.  Thus, if a person is never born they never experience any harm, and they're never deprived of any possible joy.  The only reasons for not being an antinatalist that I can see would be if one thinks imposing suffering is a good thing, if one is apathetic to other's suffering, or if one values having a child more than preventing that child's needless suffering.

As I'm sure you've deduced, if no one is procreating then the human race will die out.  Antinatalists, including myself, are very aware of this, and conclude that there is no compelling reason to continue imposing suffering with every new birth for the sake of humanity's survival.

I know this is a lot to take in, so I'll end things here.  I hope I've summarized the philosophy well enough for everyone to grasp, and I look forward to reading the comments.