Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were talking about antinatalists ending existent life.

Yes, in the ideal scenario, I think it is best to "end" all life, via gradually phasing out of existence. I think that would cause minimal suffering. I do not realistically think that it could happen in the next generation (or in any generation owing to how extreme and controversial it is perceived by the general population).

Sure, you can be compassionate and empathetic to existing beings, but I see not bringing new beings out of empathy (due to the potentiality of their guaranteed suffering) to be more moral and a purer form of the trait.

The description of the conclusion is accurate: no new beings means no one after this generation, and that is the intended outcome rather than a side effect nobody noticed. What is disputed is that the outcome is a harm. The absence of a generation is not bad for anyone, because there is no one for whom it is a loss. Deprivation needs a subject who is deprived, and after the last being there is none, so the loss registers only from the perspective of beings who already exist and are attached to the continuation. The compassion points the same way rather than against it. Caring about suffering is what makes it hard to justify starting a life whose consent cannot be obtained and whose worst outcomes are permanent. That the species continues is a goal that has to be argued for, and the argument offered is that it continues.