I find it very irrational
Ok... You are entitled to have that opinion.
But is that opinion a supported, valid, rational conclusion — derived from the premisses, or points, you've enumerated?!
Well... Let's analyse it.
1. Most people's happy moments far exceed their painful ones , Only a handful of people like us have fallen through the cracks
This is the most controversial, difficult, point you've made.
And it's not only the propositional content of your argument who's to blame for it...
This controversy mainly stems from the fact that it's not a simple, easy, task to quantify subjective experiences in a more or less "objective" way. Henceforth, the only truly easy thing — when we try to cross these murky waters — is to be mislead by false or unwarranted assumptions.
You've actually made two problematic, complementary, propositions here. I need to unpack them and rewrite/paraphrase them in order to explicit their meaning in a clear way:
(a). A majority of people has, overall, more "happy" "moments" than painful ones in their lives.
(b). A minority of people has, overall, more painful "moments" than "happy" ones in their lives. (Like "us", "the cracked" ones, on this website... I must confess this remark really "cracked" me up! 
)
What evidence do you have to support any of these two claims?
Because if you're assuming things to be true just because of
wishful thinking, then I can act in a similar way and say the following counter-claims:
(A). A majority of people constantly — and actively — deceive themselves to believe that they have, overall, a more
pleasureable predicament than a
painful one.
(B). A minority of people is less prone to this self-deception mechanism and, therefore, believe that they have a more painful predicament than a pleasureable one.
Which claims are true? Yours or mine?
I'm obviously biased towards my own POV just like anyone else... But I can safely say that my claim is far better supported by
the data we have about the harsh reality of the world.
Here. Have a nice look at the HDI plotted in a world map, have a nice overview of how "bad" it is overall:
I think everyone can clearly SEE what's the real minority... The "white", eurocentric, post-colonial, "Western", "democracies".
2. The premise of consent only applies when you are born in the first place , since one can't ask the person being born his opinion ,the closest we can come to a rational decision is making a probability call , whose odds very much favors having a limited number of kids .
Yes, I grant that it's kinda nonsensical — at a first glance — to expect consent from a hypothetical, contra-factual, baby that hasn't even been born yet, and would need to be at least 18 in order to legally make some serious decisions with his life, like buying alcohol at an liquor store.
This really strikes most people as sheer nonsense at first... Philosophies — and philosophers — usually have that effect on the common sense. They're not exactly "party people".
When you stop to really think about it, however, the consent argument starts to make a lot of sense and you begin to notice how important it actually is.
Here's a thought experiment:
A happily married couple has sex every single day. (This is sheer nonsense already
). But... One night, the wife is so, so, absolutely, tired that she falls asleep, like a motionless rock. The husband, thinking that they're so used to having sex everyday, keeps up with their habit, all the same, assuming she wouldn't mind it, even enjoy it, even if she is actually completely unconscious.
Question: did the husband raped his wife? Well... Tecnically,
yes. Because this was clearly an instance of non-consentual sexual intercourse.
What shall we conclude from all this "nonsense"?! That the consentment issue becomes even more relevant precisely when there is no one capable of giving it in the first place.
TLDR: If you can't get consent from a person who's will can possibly contrapose your own will or who's well-being is going to be directly affected by your action, without them having any say-so whatsoever, you should not commit said action. It's no nonsense, it's no irrationality — and, conversly, it's a pretty well thought, reasonable, moral standard to live by.
3. Taking some risk to make something great (making a child) always commands more respect in my book than being fearful
Again, you are entitled to have any preference or values you want.
You are not entitled, however, to make an emotional appeal fallacy and ascribe an emotional stance to the person defending a thesis you disagree with. It's a very manipulative thing to do.
Who says-so that an anti-natalist is advocating against procreation because he's "fearful"...?! Not the anti-natalist, for sure.
That's not a fair statement. Anti-natalism is not in any way a cowardice, as you ignorantly suggested. Not wanting to GAMBLE with other people's lives is not cowardice. It's actually an act of empathy and genuine respect for others.
TLDR: you are making the same bad argument, similar to the ones suicidal people hear from "pro-life" idiots ALL the time: "I have no respect in my book for suicidal people... Choosing to kill oneself is sheer cowardice."
@Mistiie you are welcome to read this reply, since, tecnically, i'm not replying to you. Who knows... maybe you'll learn something this time!
same thing pal
