I don’t believe in the existence of hell. And saving people from the option of eternal torture in hell was never part of my reasons to be an antinatalist. But it should be a reason to be an antinatalist for anyone who does believe in hell, as who would take the risk that their own children would endure eternal afterlife of torture?

The answer apparently is every person who believes in hell and nevertheless created people despite the risk of them ending up there (according to that person belief), and that’s probably tens of billions of people all along history.

People who believe that in the afterlife every human can either be destined to live in eternal bliss with God in heaven, or to be cast away from God’s presence and suffer eternally in hell, are not only putting their children’s lives at risk, but also their children’s afterlives, since they have no guarantee that their children will freely accept god and keep their faith for their entire lives, and therefore be salvaged. Salvation is not guaranteed for anyone and parents don’t know in advance whether their children would be redeemed by god or not, therefore they are taking a risk that their children would suffer eternal damnation. It is not just a double risk but an eternal one.

The fact that probably tens of billions of people along history took the risk that probably the same number of people would be eternally tortured in the worst way possible, goes to show how careless and selfish they are.

Probably the fact that almost all antinatalists don’t believe hell exists (except for the one we are living in right now), causes us not to be severely appalled by this notion, but tens of billions of people along history, and probably billions nowadays, genuinely believe that hell is an option and yet they are consciously exposing their own children to the risk of eternal life in the worst place they can imagine.

For many out of the probably tens of billions of people along history, not to procreate practically meant abstention from sex as many of them lived before they could have sex without the risk of creating new people that could end up in hell, but while unfortunately it is hard to expect people to abstain from sex because of the risk that their children would have a bad life on earth, it is absolutely plausible to expect that, or to find ways to minimize the risk of pregnancy because of the risk of your own children condemned to eternal hell! There is no greater risk than living the worst life imaginable, and forever. And even if you disagree that abstention is not too much to ask considering the risk of enteral hell for their own children, that expectation is relevant only for those who believe in hell and lived in times when their only sure and realistic option to avoid procreation (the option of abortion is ancient but it wasn’t available for most people during most of history) is to avoid sex (or at least sexual acts that can end up with impregnation). I don’t think I can estimate what the share of people who believed in hell after the contraception age is compared with people who believed in hell before the contraception age, but given the population growth curve, it is highly probable that despite that the concept of hell is very ancient, there were more procreations of people who believed in hell after the contraception age than before it. In any case it is billions of people, with many of them living among us, who according to their creeds are taking the risk that their own children would forever endure the worst things imaginable.

Because I am sure no one’s children are going to end up being tortured forever in hell, I am not bothered with the implications of that concept, and focus on things that could really happen to people’s children and that therefore they shouldn’t create them; but we should nevertheless be very bothered by the implications of the concept of hell.

First of all we must be bothered by the unbridgeable gaps antinatalists have with some people. We are so appalled by procreation, among other things because of all the horrible things that might happen in life on earth, and they are so enthusiastic about procreation despite all the horrible things that they believe might happen in the afterlife in hell, eternal life full of the worst things imaginable.

And secondly, we must consider the forces we are dealing with here.
It is not that as long as people believed in hell they have created less people, and once many of them stopped believing in hell they have created more people, but people have created new people all along history, and always regardless of the fate they believed is optional for them.
So, for many it is the option of eternal suffering in hell, for many others it is the high probability of lifelong suffering on earth due to a foreseen inborn disease, congenital anomaly, an abusive parent, living in a war zone, in a famine stricken area, extreme poverty, an inclination to various mental and physical health issues and etc., and for everyone it is the certainty of pain, sickness, fear, boredom, frustration, severe injuries, regret, broken-heartedness, loneliness, death, the fear of death and every other hardship life is full of.

Some of these harms are certain, some probable, some possible, and some may be merely imaginary. But the fact that even the worst option imaginable didn’t hinder the ones who seriously believe in it from procreating, must make us realize how strong people’s desire to procreate is, and how indifferent they are to the consequences of their decision to procreate. And therefore it is highly unlikely that our ethical and rational arguments could ever suffice.

Life on earth is so horrible in our view that we would have probably never felt the need to invent something such as hell as part of an antinatalist thought experiment. But for many people along history, and to this day, apparently, even if we would have used hell as an extremely exaggerated scenario in a thought experiment aiming to demonstrate the risk parents are exposing their children to when procreating, they wouldn’t be appalled, as according to them, it is an actual option.
The hell they are referring to, meaning eternal torture for nonbelievers, is imaginary. The real hell is the place where among many other horrors, many people believe in the imaginary version of it and yet they indifferently put their own children at risk of being tortured there forever.
The very existence of the imaginary hell must convince us to think of other ways to deal with the real one.

References

Kateřina Lochmanová et al. History of Antinatalism: How Philosophy Has Challenged the Question of Procreation (2020) ISBN 9798645624255