Now I'm going to turn it around, if a loving Creator plans to set our spirits free is it still amoral to have babies?
Like screwtape, I need some clarifications: what exactly do you mean by "spirits" and "free"? Does the first term mean an immaterial consciousness that retains the same identity it had while part of a body, and the second that consciousness surviving bodily death? Assuming that's the gist of what you mean, then again I say, it depends.
People conceive, bear and raise children even under pretty trying circumstances: extreme poverty, warzones and the like. That has little to do with morality and much to do with sheer survival instinct. Generally, I would say that's a bad choice for parent/s and child alike.
Since you don't say otherwise, apparently physical existence and bodily death are either part of the plan or things the "loving creator" has no problem with. And a lot of those physical deaths are pretty traumatic, if only for those who see others die before them.
Junebug, I just don't see how "a loving creator" could be responsible for the world as it is, assuming that loving creator is omnipotent. If that's true, I don't see any way around the classic conundrum:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?