Anti-natalist overtones in Buddhism Buddhism has anti-natalist overtones according to the writings of Hari Singh Gour below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism


  Buddha states his propositions in the pedantic style of his age. He throws them into a form of sorites; but, as such, it is logically faulty and all he wishes to convey is this: Oblivious of the suffering to which life is subject, man begets children, and is thus the cause of old age and death. If he would only realize what suffering he would add to by his act, he would desist from the procreation of children; and so stop the operation of old age and death. 


How does this view of the Buddha reconcile with the fact that the Buddha had a son named Rahul?
While the Buddha later taught procreation of children can be burdensome &amp; confining, thus previously calling his son "Rahula", this is unrelated to ending suffering.

Keep in mind, when unenlightened Gotama (not yet a Buddha) had a son, Gotama was not yet a Buddha. He was not enlightened. Therefore, Gotama calling his son "Rahula" was not related to being a Buddha. 

Like most people, Hari Singh Gour did not understand Buddhism, which is shameful for a highly educated Indian. 

In India, today, as always, the word "jati" does not necessarily mean "physical birth" or "procreation". I expect Hari Singh Gour should have understood this. 

The Buddha taught suffering ends by ending "jati" ("self &amp; social identity"). When there is no conceiving of "identity", there is no reference point for the conceiving of "aging &amp; death". 

When the mind suffers about aging &amp; death, it does not suffer over the aging &amp; death of a physical body or corpse. Instead, the mind suffers over the loss an "identity" or "jati", such as "myself", "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my daughter", "my son", "my friend", "my computer", "my wealth", etc. 

Please read the Pali sutta paragraphs below and try to understand: 


  Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn? When the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’
  
  MN 140
  
  
  
  And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses &amp; children are
  subject to birth. Men &amp; women slaves... goats &amp; sheep... fowl &amp;
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, &amp; mares... gold &amp; silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
  
  And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses &amp; children... men &amp; women slaves... goats &amp; sheep... fowl &amp; pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, &amp; mares... gold &amp; silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.
  
  MN 26


If you struggle to understand MN 26, then SN 12.66 clearly says the cause of aging &amp; death is acquisition (upadhi) or attachment. SN 12.66 does not mention "birth" ("jati"; apart from a general meaning of "cause" or "jatika"), as follows: 


  Here, bhikkhus, when engaged in inward exploration, a bhikkhu explores
  thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world
  headed by aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what
  is its origin, from what is it born (jātika) and produced? When what exists
  does aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
  aging-and-death not come to be?’
  
  As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
  suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born (jātika) and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
  aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
  aging-and-death does not come to be.’
  
  SN 12.66