If you are coming from the point of view that life is NEVER worth living, then how can we possibly change your view that it's a moral choice to give life? That is the fundamental question here.

∆ You've changed my view on the fact that it will be difficult to change my view (heh) and that the OP was flawed in this regard.

All of the evidence we have says that we ARE doing them a favor. We can't ask non-existent people, and you then stack the deck by saying that someone those who exist and like existing are wrong about their happiness. But a neutral observer would say that the only empirical evidence supports a preference for life.

As I attempted to explain with the luge dog analogy, these people didn't exist before someone gave birth to them. The main problem is that the decision to give birth is unethical because the person who is the most affected by it has no input in it. Therefore it's a bit strange to see it as a favor given, since by giving birth to them, you burden them with needs and effort. If they didn't exist, they would not need favors or anything in the first place. They didn't ask for anything.

Sure, many people are happy, and my goal isn't to attack them or convince them that they aren't, but it doesn't remove the fact that a risky decision regarding their well-being was made for selfish reasons. By sheer luck, it turned out fairly OK for them.

I'm also not sure how you conclude that a moment's suffering outweighs a lifetime of pleasure. Every game, movie, tv show, friendship, food etc is flawed in some way - that doesn't make it not worthwhile.

I see it more in a macro sense, is my happy life worth the pain of all those people with broken ones? I'm pretty satisfied with my existence but it disgusts me to know that unspeakable things are happening every second of every day. Somehow I feel the pain outweighs the good because it's all unnecessary. Since there is no inherent meaning to life other than the one we give it, it doesn't seem like that pain has a redeeming trait.