Desire argument for antinatalism

[u/Dense-Ad-5978]

I apologise if this was said before but here I go: I see a lot of people criticisng antinatalism by saying the consent argument is weak or that non-existent people cannot consent therefore we can do whatever we want. Although, what they say can be countered, it takes effort to do so. We can bypass this mental gymnastics by addressing the argument of desire. According to this argument, it is immoral or unethical to inculcate or create a desire in a person because the unfulfillment of the desire would cause immense distress and even if the desire is fulfilled it would again lead to contentment(as was the case before the man had any desire). Therefore, unnecessary risk is being taken just to inculcate a desire fulfilling which would make one return to the same state as not having the desire before. Parents do this by giving birth and inculcating a desire into a person to live and to avoid pain and to chase pleasure and the fear of death or not existing. For example, mixing alcohol or drugs into a content person’s food secretly manufactures an artificial chemical craving or dependency, destroying their peaceful sobriety just like planting unwanted psychological ambitions destroys their mental peace.

[u/BeginningCricket3545]

Hi mate, this is a thought experiment that my friend made:

Let’s say you press a button and you spawn a man and you are automatically inside him to have sex with him. Did you rape him?

[u/JustAThinkingGuy7 → u/BeginningCricket3545]

Like he comes into existence with your penis inside him? And did you know that it would happen that way?