Antinatalism is theoretically correct

Most of the people dont have morality

I sniff my own laundry, so I dont need yours.

You can drink without being thirsty, but you won't experience positive affect in that.

Oh I remember this. This user is adopted to parents who later had biological children and left her to her chores without love. This was the whole song and dance and crybaby reason for it all. Mixing cultures is the parallel on the marco scale. Probably also the reason for the weird prudish red-pill wannabe housewife stuff, she's already doing the chores, missing the love. 

Thus, parents gambling with the wellbeing of others without their consent is immoral. Therefore, childbirth is immoral.

 An estimate, calculated in 2009, puts the true dollar amount for raising a child from birth through undergrad years at a whopping $1.1 million.

Theoretically correct is a contradiction.

A theory is an unproven proposition and therefore is neither correct nor incorrect.

Nonetheless, morals are just made up stuff

Whereas procreation is about as real as the species gets.

Do you think that trees worry about antinatalism after a good pollenating.

The jury is out on trees, they are certainly more social creatures than we gave them credit for.

Nope, theory is theory and correct is correct....In my opinion

If one is repeating theory, then it might be considered correct, but only if it was repeated correctly.

If you firebombed my house and bashed my children, then that is what you would do. The abstract concept of morality would be a tad irrelevant.

And I'm not sure where me inflicting wanton pain fits into the argument. It's you who's the wannabe firebomber and child basher.

1a) There is always a negative affect before a positive affect, in regards to all humans as a whole (not necessarily to individual humans -- one person's gain can come at the expense of others). Happiness, pleasure, joy etc. (positive affect) are the result of relieving oneself/people of sadness, pain, sorrow etc. (negative affect).

1b) Per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect

What do you think of drinking water? If you could flip a coin to (heads) experience your quenched thirst or (tails) to experience dehydration, would you flip the coin? According to current loss aversion theories, people would prefer not to flip the coin because they don't like risking their status quo Higgins_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Consumer_Psychology.pdf (columbia.edu) . In fact, people would be far more willing to take risks to avoid dehydration, than they would to gain a more pleasant drinking experience (perhaps a sugary beverage instead of water). Hence, we have the backing of research to suggest that per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect.

What happens if they child dies at age 4 from sickle cell anemia? Is that bad "parenting" or dependent on "upbringing?"

I apologize for coming to the conversation a bit late and thank you for addressing the initial post, I should have read over it before stating my opinion. Yes, I would like to address it.

1a) There is always a negative affect before a positive affect, in regards to all humans as a whole (not necessarily to individual humans -- one person's gain can come at the expense of others). Happiness, pleasure, joy etc. (positive affect) are the result of relieving oneself/people of sadness, pain, sorrow etc. (negative affect).

Positive effects can arise from various sources, including accomplishments, negative experiences, neutral states, or even in the absence of something they value becoming theirs. An example of this would be someone who does not have a 2023 Corvette, is this a negative emotion or merely not a positive one I would say this is not a positive or negative effect as people recognize this is a difficult wish to be fulfilled. However, being given the Corvette would have a substantial positive effect on your attitude and view of life, you would instantly be grateful and happy that someone would be willing to give you such a gift. Perhaps even you have accomplished tons of work in your new business and have finally worked up to the revenue provided by your business to finally purchase the car in which you would also have an incredible sense of accomplishment from overcoming such a large obstacle.

Obstacles are not necessarily bad

If you could beat a toddler at tic-tac-toe, you would not feel very accomplished and therefore there was not much of an obstacle to overcoming your goal of beating them. However, if your goal was to beat the world champion at chess and you were able to do so you would feel amazing accomplishment as you overcame such an enormous obstacle. This is also keeping in mind that your acknowledgement that if you did not beat the world champion does not necessarily imply a negative effect as you would have expected this.

1b) Per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect

What do you think of drinking water? If you could flip a coin to (heads) experience your quenched thirst or (tails) to experience dehydration, would you flip the coin? According to current loss aversion theories, people would prefer not to flip the coin because they don't like risking their status quo Higgins_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Consumer_Psychology.pdf (columbia.edu) . In fact, people would be far more willing to take risks to avoid dehydration, than they would to gain a more pleasant drinking experience (perhaps a sugary beverage instead of water). Hence, we have the backing of research to suggest that per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect.

I believe you're misinterpreting the research that was done here. Your argument is that because people would not be willing to gamble for a potentially positive or negative position from what they have, then they must be more afraid of negative. I could make the claim that a person in a overall positive position would not be willing to take the chance for a positive or negative place being that they've worked so hard to accomplish the positive in which they're at whereas a person who has a terribly negative life or perhaps has given up on life would be much more willing to gamble for a better one since they have practically nothing to lose. In other words, I see this research as an implication that people value what they have which demonstrates that they are grateful for their accomplishment and not willing to hastily waste or gamble them. Ultimately, I don't see this research as evidence that negative Things outweigh the positive ones but rather people value what they have and believe it should not be gambled, thus demonstrating their positive value towards it.

What happens if they child dies at age 4 from sickle cell anemia? Is that bad "parenting" or dependent on "upbringing?"

To directly answer the question, I would say it is dependent on the child's parenting. if the child's parenting would have provided the child a positive view of the world in which they would have been glad to take on the risk in order to experience life, then I believe the child would have been grateful for the opportunity but of course disappointed that it turned out they were unable to experience it. Ultimately, the morality of bringing a child into existence without their consent would be dependent on what the child would have said in their adulthood,

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking you money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

[No response yet]

I find people who come together on a public debate platform in an attempt to solve problems are typically not trolls. Trolls are all on social media.

I appreciate your views, and willingness to share them reasonably.

The problem with "society" deciding a "societal standard".

Is that it is rarely society that decides.

Usually just a handful of Academics and/or influential people.

Who want to tell us what we should decide.

Intellectual tyranny as it were.