It used to be worse during the gilded age, and people still managed to unionize then.

I’m taking an utilitarian approach. Suffering should be avoided, and happiness maximized. Bringing another being into existence guarantees suffering, with a chance of creating happiness. That is not a gamble you should take on behalf of another being.

Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there’s a clear ‘pro life’ bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn’t a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.

Suffering is inherent to the human condition. Is it okay to undertake actions that cause people suffering?

What previous status quo are antinatalists trying to return to? “Reactionary” is just the left wing equivalent of “woke”.

The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?

That’s just misanthropy.

Plagiarism is disguising another person’s work as your own. Assuming the AI generated image is labeled as such, no plagiarism is occurring.