I read the following on the internet: > The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The > Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as > "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against > orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, > it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not > rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. > > [Internet](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/8157) Did the Buddha teach at the breakup of the body there is birth? Which suttas say this?

Antinatalism is the view that it is ethically wrong to procreate any sort of sentient beings, be it human or otherwise because to exist means also to experience pain, pleasure, suffering, bodily deprivations and psychological frustrations. None of the above obviously is inflicted upon the non-existent. My question is: (i) What is the Buddhist view of this way of thinking; (ii) Why create further imperfect human beings who are capable of experience any sort of dukkha, need, want, deprivation, frustration etc., when these kinds of dukkha (and ills) could've been prevented in the first place? Even in the most ideal case, where a parent brings a child into existence that becomes an enlightened being, it is still ethically indecent to do so because (i) one is gambling with the life of that child; (ii) one is using that child as a means to an end; (iii) that "need" or desired outcome to attain enlightenment is only relevant for existent beings. It seems that Buddhism has some Antinatalist undertones, because although not mentioned in the scripture, if everyone followed the ideal, everyone would strive towards arhatship, and thus stop procreating.

Our Number of births going into the past has to necasserily be finite not infinite.an infinite number of births without a first is logically infathomable.so why did we first incarnate?