That is setting your focus on man’s interest rather than the Lord’s.
Also, it is wrong even then. Of all the lost who have ever lived it has only ever been said of one person that it would be good for them to have not lived, and that was Judas Iscariot.
Correct! I am a human being. From a human being's interest, it is preferable that no human being ever (innocently) should ever have suffered.
The Lord could very well be pursuing some unfathomable agenda according to which it was in His interest that (some) innocent human beings suffered - or, at least, according to which the suffering of innocent human beings could be regarded as "acceptable."
The microbiologist attempting to develop a new antibiotic certainly doesn't care if some of the bacteria he is experimenting on die.
Thanks for admitting that! (That the Lord might be pursuing an agenda that is in His interest, but not in ours.)
Also, it is wrong even then. Of all the lost who have ever lived it has only ever been said of one person that it would be good for them to have not lived, and that was Judas Iscariot.
I dispute that that statement should be taken as "exclusionary." Just because Jesus said that it would have been better had Judas Iscariot not been born does NOT mean that the same couldn't also be said of other persons.
Only if Jesus had been asked point-blank, "Are you saying that there is NO OTHER person in all history - past, present, or future - who likewise should never have been born?", and had He replied in the affirmative, could one justifiably argue that ONLY Judas Iscariot shouldn't have been born.
But Jesus was NOT asked that.
The fact remains that whatever unfathomable plan the Lord is pursuing, He willingly accepts that some totally innocent children will die agonizing deaths (compared to which Christ's suffering on the Cross could be seen as merciful) after having lived short, miserable lives.
But at least God's plan (whatever that is) is being realized!
Regards,