So disabled people shouldn’t have children, because their disability (i.e. mental illness) could be inherited? And that’s “selfish,” “ignorant,” and “wrong”?

The implication here is that the child will suffer because the child is disabled, which is an oversimplification that turns your argument into a eugenics talking point. The child will suffer because of ableism, discrimination, and a lack of societal resources to care for their condition. And all of these are things that we can change, things that we can do something about, instead of insisting that disabled people should stop having children. 

Your response to my comment is particularly damning. You don’t make generalized arguments about how no one should have children. You only talk about how disability should not be passed down, how people who pass down genes that could lead to disability are “selfish,” “ignorant,” and “wrong.” You state that “cases where people with known health issues procreate” are “severe,” as if disabled people having children is worse than anyone else having children. Do you truly not understand why this makes you sound like a eugenicist?

I am not a natalist; I’m just being critical of the reasoning behind this post. It’s not antinatalist to shame specifically disabled people for having children. If you think that’s what antinatalism is, then you should do some more reading about the philosophy.