Antinatalism is theoretically correct

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.

Accomplishments have a goal before them, hence a negative state wherein the person is working towards a goal (because they don't like their non-goal state of being, so we should consider that being to exist in a state of negative affect). Negative experiences obviously come before positive ones, so that's a given. Neutral states result in boredom if lingered in for too long, of which is itself a negative state. I don't know how an "absence of something they value" results in a positive state.

Not having a Corvette, in this scenario, results in a negative emotion and that's proven negative by the fact that someone would work for the Corvette. If people were neutral towards the Corvette (or not feeling a positive emotion towards the thought of having it), then they wouldn't be willing to exert effort and invest time (i.e. work) into it. In other words, they are willing to sacrifice effort and time to own a Corvette because not having a Corvette result in a negative state of being.

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.

This amplifies the problem of existence because that positive feeling of accomplishment is expensive in terms of time and effort. It would be better if we could experience genuine accomplish in beating a toddler.

Losing, even if expected, is never a positive experience. The negative feelings found in losing could be mitigated if you don't expect to beat the world champ, but this is not positive in the slightest.

Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence. 

Not everyone is worth responding to.

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?

Please correct me if I'm wrong Zed, but I believe Zed used a poor choice of words in what they were trying to express, and I'm in agreement. It was not that morals don't exist or aren't real, but rather they aren't inherent or within the thing itself, rather they are based upon the individual.

In other words, acknowledging the necessity of a moral standard for a civil foundation, but at the same time recognizing they do not exist within the thing itself, but rather created by a group of individuals. Moreover, if no one values a diamond, it has no value. This is why in the desert one could trade money for water, but in the city, you could trade water for money. This implies that the things themselves have no value because it is subject to the individual's experiences and circumstances, which means that value is not an inherent thing but rather created by how much the people who value it do so.

I never implied that the neutral state or the absence of something valuable was positive, but I am implying absence isn't necessarily negative. 

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

[responding to all your other analogies, too]

It's now easy to understand that without these obstacles many values in life would be lost. Therefore, I don't see obstacles as negative but rather the platform to becoming a champion.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.

Ultimately, obstacles are a necessary part of life, and I am grateful to have them. So many aspects of life would become valueless if obstacles ceased to exist. 

Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence. 

Not everyone is worth responding to.

I agree, I typically only respond to coherent arguments. However, sometimes others truly don't understand what one is saying. Therfore, I often attempt in expressing myself better before assuming it is their incompetence.

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 your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

We must also consider what morals are. Morals are the collective agreement of what is permissible for a civil society. A clear example of this is if there was no society, we would need no morals. This is because no one would be affected. Therefore, morals are created to form a coherent and successful society. The moment we attempt to use morals to imply that existence of society is wrong, we are using the concept of morality to prove its purpose as wrong. This is an illogical flaw, as morals are ment to promote societal well being, and by using morals to destroy that is the opposite of their purpose. It's similar to using a tool for construction for destruction, it's not correct usage of the tool. Therefore if you create a reason society shouldn't exist, you aren't using morals, but something else.

Let's refer to it as social guidance then.

Though it is nonetheless the imposition of one's ideology upon another's.

Which I suppose is the basis of species evolution and it's material achievements.

Do you think that the labouring under-class is becoming redundant?

Humans have decided that it's a negative because they want to move away from those neutral or absence states. It's almost impossible to imagine a human, lying in bed with no desires and no goals, being totally okay with doing that for most of the day (obviously, the person will need to eat, drink and relieve themselves).

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.

I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.

You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.

You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.

It's now easy to understand that without these obstacles many values in life would be lost. Therefore, I don't see obstacles as negative but rather the platform to becoming a champion.

People want the positive effect that results from overcoming the obstacles; they do not want the obstacles themselves. 

Again, it is a net negative when goals are guaranteed in life, but fulfillment of those goals (in a satisfactory way) is not.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck. 

Ultimately, obstacles are a necessary part of life, and I am grateful to have them. So many aspects of life would become valueless if obstacles ceased to exist. 

They're a necessary part of biological human life, and that makes them bad. You being grateful for them is just nonsense. Again, nobody wants more obstacles in their lives. You really don't want 50 pedestrians flying out in front of you on your way to work, of which would test your driving ability. You really don't want to get Covid, Measels, AIDS, cancer and the flu all at the same time, even if it would bring obstacles to your life for you to overcome.

It's fine to say that obstacles are the way in which humans generate value in their lives, but nobody actually wants obstacles (they want the positive affect after plowing through them).

You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.

Losing is always a negative experience. You can draw positive or mitigating lessons from it, but the act of losing (separate from those lesson) is 100% always negative.

Again, what if you make no progression? It's just a negative state that wasn't met with any "progression".

Do you see how the negative is always coming before the positive? It's critical to understanding my argument.

Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence. 

Not everyone is worth responding to.

I agree, I typically only respond to coherent arguments. However, sometimes others truly don't understand what one is saying. Therfore, I often attempt in expressing myself better before assuming it is their incompetence.

When these types of people immediately resort to personal insults (not really Best Korea, but certainly the others), you know that your expression of your argument isn't the issue.

Even in this thread, you can see this. Sidewalker calls me a "white supremacist" in a thread that has nothing to do with it: Antinatalism is theoretically correct (debateart.com) 

Badger's is kinda on topic but it's still a personal attack that doesn't address the content of the OP: Antinatalism is theoretically correct (debateart.com) 

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 your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?

Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).

We must also consider what morals are. Morals are the collective agreement of what is permissible for a civil society. A clear example of this is if there was no society, we would need no morals. This is because no one would be affected. Therefore, morals are created to form a coherent and successful society. The moment we attempt to use morals to imply that the existence of society is wrong, we are using the concept of morality to prove its purpose as wrong. This is an illogical flaw, as morals are meant to promote societal wellbeing, and by using morals to destroy that is the opposite of their purpose. It's similar to using a tool for construction for destruction, it's not correct usage of the tool. Therefore, if you create a reason society shouldn't exist, you aren't using morals, but something else.

I don't agree with that specific definition of morals. Morals can simply be a standard of human behavior; it doesn't have to be about what is permissible for a civil society.

If we are granted the axiom that suffering/pain/discomfort/negative affect is bad for humans, and human life has more negatives than positives, then avoiding bringing more humans into existence should be the ideal standard of human behavior. 

Humans have decided that it's a negative because they want to move away from those neutral or absence states. It's almost impossible to imagine a human, lying in bed with no desires and no goals, being totally okay with doing that for most of the day (obviously, the person will need to eat, drink and relieve themselves).

Your example suggests that because someone desires to move from a neutral state to a positive state then the neutral state must be negative, but this is incorrect. It rather implies that people value something positive over nothing at all, nothing at all, which is not necessarily negative. They value positive as better than neutral, not neutral as negative. Therefore, the absence of something positive is not necessarily a negative. In essence they're not leaving neutral because they dislike it in the sense that they leave something negative because they dislike it. Rather, they are moving from the neutral to the positive because they like where they're going more than where they're at.

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.

I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.

You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.

You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.

Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.

I'm trying to demonstrate that work is not negative or positive, rather it sets the stage to become a champion and without it no one could become a champion.

Imagine a world where everyone was average, it would be pretty pathetic.

I value challenges and obstacles because they provide a means to a better life than just being the neutral individual. Sure it's work, but that is what makes it such an accomplishment to achieve. Without the work it wouldn't be much of an accomplishment and as I've said before without accomplishment there is no sincere value for overcoming it.

It's now easy to understand that without these obstacles many values in life would be lost. Therefore, I don't see obstacles as negative but rather the platform to becoming a champion.

People want the positive effect that results from overcoming the obstacles; they do not want the obstacles themselves. 

Again, it is a net negative when goals are guaranteed in life, but fulfillment of those goals (in a satisfactory way) is not.

I agree with you that people want the positive effect and not the obstacles themselves. However, that is how the world works.

To base your claim of anti-natalism on the foundation of a hypothetical world where positive effects could be obtained without the obstacles of life is not a suitable foundation for your argument. Rather to make a case for anti-natalism in our universe we should base it on our universe as principles and not a hypothetical one.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck. 

I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative.

Again, it is based on the mentality of the individual. My mentality of a being defeated by an obstacle, or a challenge is that I will always come back stronger, and I acknowledge I may never be the world champion of whatever I try to accomplish but then again positive effect is subjective as it's met by the individual's preferences and desires of what they consider success. for myself it is always being better than I was previously and that progression is what I value as positive. For another individual they may not feel positive unless they are the world champion and for them, I can't say much. Ultimately the feeling of positive or negative comes down to what makes the individual feel satisfied and that is subjective and varies. If we're going to support the concept of anti-natalism upon a subjective varying factor, our conclusion will be varying upon the individual and therefore is not a concrete or definitive answer.

Ultimately, obstacles are a necessary part of life, and I am grateful to have them. So many aspects of life would become valueless if obstacles ceased to exist. 

They're a necessary part of biological human life, and that makes them bad. You being grateful for them is just nonsense. Again, nobody wants more obstacles in their lives. You really don't want 50 pedestrians flying out in front of you on your way to work, of which would test your driving ability. You really don't want to get Covid, Measels, AIDS, cancer and the flu all at the same time, even if it would bring obstacles to your life for you to overcome.

It's fine to say that obstacles are the way in which humans generate value in their lives, but nobody actually wants obstacles (they want the positive affect after plowing through them).

I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.

Losing is always a negative experience. You can draw positive or mitigating lessons from it, but the act of losing (separate from those lesson) is 100% always negative.

Again, what if you make no progression? It's just a negative state that wasn't met with any "progression".

Do you see how the negative is always coming before the positive? It's critical to understanding my argument.

It is not always the case that a person does not meet progression, it is almost always a certainty. The human mind was made to develop more, given more life experience and as time moves forward everyone develops more life experience so it is almost a certainty that progression will be made if determined and focused on one's goals.

Moreover, it is possible for a person to meet progression often, and even if not often, still occasionally, and even if occasionally, it means that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Your claim is that negativity is always a predecessor of positivity and above you say what if a person makes no progression that is a form of negativity. I would agree it is a form of negativity to make no progression, but I would also say what if they do make progression and therefore negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Therefore, I can prove that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity.

Humans have decided that it's a negative because they want to move away from those neutral or absence states. It's almost impossible to imagine a human, lying in bed with no desires and no goals, being totally okay with doing that for most of the day (obviously, the person will need to eat, drink and relieve themselves).

Your example suggests that because someone desires to move from a neutral state to a positive state then the neutral state must be negative, but this is incorrect. It rather implies that people value something positive over nothing at all, nothing at all, which is not necessarily negative. They value positive as better than neutral, not neutral as negative. Therefore, the absence of something positive is not necessarily a negative. In essence they're not leaving neutral because they dislike it in the sense that they leave something negative because they dislike it. Rather, they are moving from the neutral to the positive because they like where they're going more than where they're at.

I know what you're saying but it's just not true.

Let's exaggerate to the extreme to see the exact value of having goals: If a person had a myriad of goals in life and never achieved any of them, would that be a life lived in a neutral state? Would that person be totally indifferent to the fact that they achieved zero of their goals?

Also, states of hunger, thirst and relieving oneself are super clearly states of deprivation. Not attending to those goals very obviously creates negative affect. 

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.

I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.

You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.

You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.

Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.

The person still reached their goal, even if the feeling of achievement was robbed of them. But again, this only strengthens my antinatalist argument (1a) as someone can reach their goal (something not guaranteed), and yet still be unsatisfied because of the way in which it was reached. You're just arguing for more instances wherein the person won't reach their goal (hence not be in a state of positive affect).

I can agree with everything you've said in your paragraph and that would strengthen my case.

I'm trying to demonstrate that work is not negative or positive, rather it sets the stage to become a champion and without it no one could become a champion.

Even if it does set the stage to "become a champion", it's still negative in itself. That's why we have phrases like 'motivated to work': work is a negative state to be in that requires mental discipline and endurance to come out the other side of (hopefully a champion).

Also, the concept of 'champion' is often a zero-sum game that produces far more losers than it does winners. Not everyone can win gold at the Olympics. Not everyone can lift their sport's world cup. It might even be a universal: people have to lose so that winners (i.e. champions) can be made. Thus, having the concept and implementation of 'champions' should actually be avoided, due to the overall harm it causes (and often unnecessary in things like sport).

Imagine a world where everyone was average, it would be pretty pathetic.

Not objectively, and this is yet another argument for antinatalism -- there's just no world for humans in which everyone can win. If everyone had 130 I.Q. and was strong enough to bench 500 lbs, then that would be "average" and would be deemed "pretty pathetic". People would feel better if they had 115 I.Q. and could only bench 375 lbs, if everyone else only had 100 I.Q. and bench 280 lbs, even if they're objectively worse numbers.

We all live in an age of prosperity that people 2000 years ago couldn't dream of, yet a lot of people are still unhappy with their lives. Even in the most backwards part of Africa, they're still living at a far higher standard than most people in human history. 

Objective improvements that cost real world resources don't impress the human mind for long -- it's a faulty psychology.

I value challenges and obstacles because they provide a means to a better life than just being the neutral individual. Sure it's work, but that is what makes it such an accomplishment to achieve. Without the work it wouldn't be much of an accomplishment and as I've said before without accomplishment there is no sincere value for overcoming it.

No, you don't value challenges or obstacles. You value the result of overcoming those challenges/obstacles. 

If we suddenly dumped 50 obstacles in your life right now, you wouldn't so, "finally, more obstacles," you would instead be overwhelmed.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck. 

I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative.

Right. You're basically agreeing with my argument 1a at this point.

Again, it is based on the mentality of the individual. My mentality of a being defeated by an obstacle, or a challenge is that I will always come back stronger, and I acknowledge I may never be the world champion of whatever I try to accomplish but then again positive effect is subjective as it's met by the individual's preferences and desires of what they consider success. for myself it is always being better than I was previously and that progression is what I value as positive. For another individual they may not feel positive unless they are the world champion and for them, I can't say much. Ultimately the feeling of positive or negative comes down to what makes the individual feel satisfied and that is subjective and varies. If we're going to support the concept of anti-natalism upon a subjective varying factor, our conclusion will be varying upon the individual and therefore is not a concrete or definitive answer.

The mentality of the individual is certainly a factor, but human affect isn't based on that.

It's actually based on the fact that humans universally view pain/suffering/discomfort/negative affect as something undesirable. Humans enter these universally agreed upon negative states through various ways (or vice versa), and THEN we take into account the mentality factor. So, mentality is a mitigating/amplifying factor, and certainly not what all this is based on.

For example, being told that you have cancer will produce negative affect. Someone with a weak mentality will be crippled with depression. Someone with a strong mentality will still be upset but determined to beat it. One person experiences a lot of negative affect; the other person feels minimal negative affect, but the basis is the initial negative affect felt from the event, not the mentality in response to it.

You can say things like, "I will always come back stronger" and other positive platitudes, but that positive attitude isn't guaranteed, and people might not even be capable of it (what if people aren't genetically capable of a positive mindset?). Those people are still part of the equation as to whether human life is desirable, so you can't hand wave their lives away with, "I can't say much". Unless you want to argue that everyone is capable of this "I will always come back stronger" mentality for all scenarios (or even most), there will be people who are sacrificed on the altar of human continuation.

I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.

It's possible that some people would want to take the chance, but we don't know for sure because there is no consent (my OP's argument 2). So, you're just gambling with someone's life without asking them first.

There's plenty of other horrible things that can go wrong in life, particularly towards the backend of life. Various cancers are quite common and often devastating. Chronic illnesses can pop up, too. It's not just dying from heart disease in infancy that is the only serious problem. The chances of you making it through life without something terrible happening can't be too high (and you're guaranteed to die at the end, too).

Also, unless you think that 100% of people would be fine taking this gamble, you're imposing this gamble on people without their consent *and* without thinking they would accept it -- that's morally problematic.

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.