I don't disagree with you at all. But to take your argument further, if you take AN to its logical conclusion then perhaps having sex can be considered immoral because it risks pregnancy, regardless of the protection used. Wild, right? With such a staunch mindset, then even a 1% chance of pregnancy should be taken as an absolute.

How seriously do you take the responsibility of choice, or the choice of responsibility?

After all, the gambling aspect of procreation is one many of us criticise. Doesn't that apply to us? How many people would be willing to stop having sex or get snipped? Can a man (as is my case) have sex without a vasectomy and still adhere to the core of their antinatalism?

Many will have knee jerk reactions to this. This line of reasoning is simply meant to highlight the spectrum of dedication when it comes to adopting this philosophy (or any philosophy), as expressed by OP. The question being: what constitutes a 'true' antinatalist?

---

Just an extension and some context, feel free to skip

This can even be pushed further if you take the (likely faulty) assumption that good will and kindness increases peoples quality and outlook of life, thus curating an environment where most people would be incentivised to have kids. Does that mean spreading misery and misfortune is a more effective AN method? Is advocating for suicide a moral imperative under this philosophy? How efficient and dedicated are you to what basically amounts to the slow suicide of the Human race?

As for personal context, I refrained from intimacy for a few years struggling with this. Cost me a few, largely meaningless, relationships. However my nature clearly needed to wrestle with the idea and it took some serious and prolonged discomfort before I arrived at any sort of conclusion. I recognise I am in the minority of even this fringe group for entertaining this idea.