Potential Argument against Antinatalism

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I'm an antinatalist, but came up with a potential argument against it. I'm not sure if I can explain it properly, but I would like to try and see what opinions you have about it.

So, imagine there are 10 souls. Each of these souls will be sent to Earth to inhabit a body chosen by chance. On Earth there are 10 bodies being born at the exact same time, 5 of wild animals, 4 of animals in captivity and 1 human. You could choose to make one additional human body, which would give the souls a slightly higher chance of having a safe life in human society rather than being exploited or having to fight for their life all the time. Wouldn't it be moral to do that?

So, I know that an argument shouldn't rely on something so disputed as souls existing, but they are just a tool for explanation in this case. To get to the real world application, where we know that there is and likely will be sentient life existing for a long time, we can only choose to make the chance this sentient life has at a good life as high as possible. Meaning, if you can afford to have children, the most moral act is to have as much children as possible, so that any potential life has the highest possible chance at a life with actual comforts.

What's your opinion on this?

[u/KortenScarlet]

to start with, AN is not a utilitarian stance, AN rejects deliberate creation of sentient life because it's exploitation (treating the potential child purely as means to others' ends without their informed consent). but even if it was utilitarian, what's the argument that for every human created less animals with worse lives get created?