it is clear that the world with the surplus of agony cannot be better,

Okay, do you have any argument other than "it is clear". Once again: it may be clear to you, it's not clear to me. "Clear" being another two-place word.

I was trying to get you understand that it is probably unwise to assume that people much smarter than you,

What's your reason to believe that they're much smarter than me?

And of course, for you to use the argument of their smartness, and for me to accept it, I wouldn't just have to accept they're smarter than me, I would also have to accept that they're smarter than me and that you are interpreting and expressing their views correctly.

I'd rather discuss the issue directly, rather than yield to the views of authorities which I haven't read.

So if we want to insist that the mother does have a reason for waiting, we must drop, or at least revise, the principle that things can be better only if they are better for someone.

It's me who was arguing on the side of average utilitarianism, in short the idea that we can consider the life of the average person, not a real specific person. Average utilitarianism clearly sides with the idea that the woman ought wait.

As for the particular example you gave, any decision in our presents makes future people in our light-cones "different" than they would otherwise have been.

If we're making a distinction between "John-A, born on Oct-1, and suffers from a crippling ailment" and "John-B, born on Nov-1, perfectly health", then we should also be making a distinction between "John-A, born on Oct-1, and suffers from a crippling ailment" and "John-C, born on Oct-1, used to suffer from a crippling ailment and was cured via a medical procedure shortly afterwards".