> Would anything be different had I not existed? No, besides my brief life experience and interactions I’ve had with other humans not occurring.

“Besides” is doing a lot of work here.

> it gradually northern to our current state where it is legal to kill your own children any time before they turn 18.

They’re trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcHzaWyB21A

It's happening in Canada right now. They are pressuring inconvenient individuals to take their lives.

Primary care duties and costs should remain with caregivers except in cases of neglect or deprivation. Additional healthcare burdens (e.g. development psychologists, medication, etc.) should be covered by the state. When caregivers die, the subject is assigned a social worker to ensure his wellbeing. If no other caregiver can be found, he becomes a ward of the state.

Socializing the costs this way has its own ethical problems, especially where the parents continue to reproduce after learning they are carriers; I’ve simply concluded that the costs of care are completely negligible when you contrast them with the loss of human dignity that results from valuing an individual human on the basis of economic cost or contribution.

> In a related discussion, someone argued that keeping up industrial farming is just, because if we stopped doing so all the cattle that wouldn’t been born would be worse off for never being alive, even if their existence was suffering, because suffering is better than not being at all. I firmly believe this is just wrong. Before a being gains consciousness, it’s not a being and doesn’t experience, hence by avoiding their conception we also avoid unnecessary suffering.

You bring up an interesting argument, but I think there is some nuance here. I am not arguing that we have an obligation to propagate human life for the sake of propagating human life; I just think there is a risk of devaluing existing human life by claiming it ought not to have existed in the first place.

There are limitations here. e.g. if one is offended at the claim that Down Syndrome is something to be cured, it may be that one is placing too much emphasis on identifying the expression of an individual’s genes with the individual himself (so e.g. eliminating the extra chromosome is not analogous to eliminating the person himself). We wouldn’t do this with a broken bone, but the solution to a broken bone is setting the bone, whereas the “solution” to Down Syndrome has historically been abortion.

So what if one doesn't exist yet and another could be? Then both are possibilities. Your sentences look superifically logical but they make no actual sense.