No, not at all.
Personally, I consider the idea more than a bit self-contradictory. What we are is to a large extent a direct result of our circunstances and life experiences, up to and very much including our social environments and physical health.
What would reincarnation be? Some sort of second (and by some takes also third, etc) bodily life after we have died once (or more), if I understand that idea.
But that amounts to deciding that in some sense a newborn can or should be perceived as a direct continuation of someone else who had died previously. Most often that takes the form of expecting that newborn to eventually develop memories - particularly emotional memories, I would think - of one or more of "its" previous lives.
I just don't know why that would be meaningful even if we knew that to happen as a matter of course.
Some ideas of reincarnation seem to expect some form of conscious "curating", so to speak. That makes sense; how else can you connect two people that have never lived at the same time, have never communicated with each other, and by some tales may not even share a language or culture?
Also, what does it mean to be "the same" person? We change significantly along our natural lifespans as it is. Far as we can see, newborns do not arise with many traits that are typical of elder people. They do not respond cognitively and emotionally in ways that suggest being a continuation of previous adults. They do not (for instance) seem to have inherent tendencies to develop specific accents, let alone to remember languages of their presumed previous lives. Nor do they come with specific political affections and (fortunately) generally come with no mental or physical infirmities that are often found in old age.
I can see the emotional appeal of belief that specific people might deserve and somehow receive a second chance at life. But that idea just doesn't seem to have factual support, and it is not clear to me why it might be even desirable in reality.