Which is it, Schopenhauer? The person that imposes this burden of life on the next generation is cold blooded? And yet reason is what is going to make one shy away from "burdening the next generation"? How exactly are hot blood and reason on the same side? Are they not, in fact, the exact opposite? And if so, why speak of cold blood as negative, and reason as positive?
Why is it that when it comes to antinatalism, you say a person who defends it is reasonable, but when they defend natalism, they are cold blooded? Isn't this "sympathy" rather not just a much misguided compassion, and an emotional argument? So how is it that you can say that "guided by reason alone", someone will come to defend antinatalism, when you use "sympathy" as the driving force behind your argument?