Reproduction is not a rational choice

What do I mean when I say reproduction is not a rational choice? I have two arguments, one of which I will rely on more than the other, but both of which deserve consideration. Argument 1: The consequence of reproduction is having children. No one can know what having children is like until they have had children, which makes the experience total new. (We can have similar experiences by having pets, beings aunts and uncles, and so forth, but we cannot know the full extent of raising children and having to be responsible for them until we have done so. ) As a result, we cannot know whether we will like having children or whether we will be good parents. Argument 2: Before being born, we do not exist. States of nonexistence have no properties, that is, one is not happy or sad or angry because they are not anything at all. Therefore existence is a neutral state (insofar as it is a 'state' at all, which it really isn't - but here we must succumb to the poverty of language). Existence is an active state which can either be good or bad (of course, life is more complex than 'good' or 'bad,' but ultimately we live lives that we consider overall good or overall bad). That information also can only be known retrospectively, which means that anytime we reproduce, we take a big risk. Why do I say that? Because we are 'taking' someone from a neutral state, represented by the number 0, and gambling on the fact that they will be in a positive (+1) state after birth. If we knew ahead of time that they would be in a negative, that is, a -1 state, we surely would not reproduce as it would be cruel. But the fact is that we have no idea a priori whether or not our children will suffer or be happy in life. Certainly one can take steps to try to make their children happy, but if they are born with defects or deformities, or have developmental problems, or become terminally ill (the list goes on), they will almost certainly live all or most of their lives in a -1 state. But couldn't they also very likely exist in an overall +1 state their entire lives? Doesn't this argument go the other way too - that is, by not having children we are precluding potential good, happy lives from being actualized? Yes, but that argument is not persuasive for the following reason: happiness is a state of fulfillment. That is, it is something additional to simply existing. That means that happiness is always going to be a process of striving to achieve some end or to pursue some means that make us happy. Before we are born (when we are in a 0 state), we are not deprived of happiness because we have nothing to fulfill. In other words, we don't know what we are missing. So while denying a nonexistent potential person happiness might not add anything to their state of neutral, it also does not take anything away. However, to bring someone from a neutral state into a negative state, that is, a life of suffering, would be to take something away, since suffering is obviously worse than not suffering. To summarize that point, here are the possibilities for non-existence: No pain: Good No happiness: Not bad Whereas here are the possibilities for existence: Pain: Bad Happiness: Good If everyone has a roughly 50/50 chance of either suffering or being happy in life, then there is an equally likely chance for a bad outcome and an equally likely chance for a good outcome. But by not existing, our chances for a good outcome (that is, not experiencing pain) are 100%, and we are not suffering a loss by not experiencing happiness. Both of these arguments suggest that reproduction can never be for the sake of our potential children. Argument 1 shows that practically speaking, we cannot know if we will enjoy having children or if we will be good parents. Con might object that we make decisions all the time without the prior experience, to which I would say: yes, but they aren't decisions that will directly affect someone - and even if they DO affect someone else, they very rarely will affect that person for the rest of their lives the way parenthood will. Argument 2 also shows that there exists a real risk that bringing someone into existence will cause them to leave a neutral state and be thrust into a negative state. While it is also possible that they will be put into a positive state, that is not something that they are being deprived of - it is just an addition - where as the negative state would indeed take something away. In conclusion, reproduction is a selfish choice that runs a very real risk of negatively affecting someone who was otherwise 'in' a neutral state, and the state that they will be in can only be known retrospectively. Therefore it is not a decision that can be made rationally as it is always a gamble - a gamble for which the odds are not good. Therefore it is not rational. Thanks again to con, I look forward to his response!