I was the same way with the problem of evil. Belief doesn't map behavior or attitudes. It usually signals ideological change, but it's not always conscious or immediate.

It took me over a decade to believe that God does not exist after I came to realize I accept the reality of gratuitous suffering and its gross insult to divinity. Negative apologetics still tempt me to this day, but I conceptualize it as an arational ir not irrational leap of faith that the world really isn't as it appears.

The idea that procreation is wrong is simultaneously vindicating and lacerating. It's not a fun thing to believe; it proposes a reality blatantly contradicts what we think the world should be like in the most intimate way, by challenging the morality of your own existence by proxy of birth. Yet, the permissibility of procreation blatantly contradicts our own humanity by denying us choice of our own lives. If anything should be in our control, our choice, it's our life. Procreation being OK says that someone killing themself because they failed to justify their own existence is simply cost of doing business.

Life is contradictory. In a way, AN doesn't make sense and natalism doesn't make sense. There's no rule or law of nature that says mutually exclusive beliefs has one with contradictions and the other free of contradiction. I think in general you can find error in belief and still come away preferring one over the other. I think in the case with AN, I prefer its contradictions over natalism's. The natalist has to say that child abuse is acceptable consequence for society. I say if you were truly against child abuse, you wouldn't create children.

I'm down to listen to what you take to be AN contradictions, if you have some in mind.