Ask Lemmygrad

Again, consent doesn't matter, as none can be given by this non-existing person. On the other hand, that is to be considered cruel and gratuitous.

Let's just go on a tangent: we, humans, the apex of this planet, do play God quite often, and as such, we are the ones that draw the line on this type of stuff. See, for example, mice, which are used for bio studies for a myriad of ailments. So, the genetic engineering already exists. Most people just don't realize it.

"But they are different species". Yes, and mammals too. So similar to us, in fact, that we use them to study our diseases. We even "pre-bake" them with cancer, if it's needed for research. Go closer to humans and stuff start to get wronger. Big apes are a no-go, Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, need approval from bioethics boards. We draw the line where in the tree of life animals start to be too like us to matter.

So, why only be antinatalist and not vegan as well? Is human suffering the only thing that matters? I haven't even considered invertebrates for that matter.

I'll end this tangent about genetic engineering and speciecism here.

And no, antinatalism is not about branding. The whole ideology is moot. I do have friends who have this instance. I say it to their face that it is either defeatist, conservatist and, in general, a shit for brains idea. It's just neomalthusianism, all over again. Here, have a link from Reddit on that.

And, as I like to say, again, to my friend's face: go seek psychiatric and psychological help. Accepting this type of ideology is, in my own experience being on that side of the argument, a symptom of depression. You see life as completely sad and full of woe, when it's just so much more.

Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen't exists so it's can't concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it?

In the actual world, dominated by the bourgeoisie, there is some consent between people and scientiest, that this would be not ok. It is not been seen as ethical. What is ethical or not is nothing more than a artificial line made by humans and depends greatly on material conditions. Especially after human experiments in Japan and Germany.

But the question, if it is ok to artificially create a human with so many disabilities or simply give birth to human, are things which are not related at all. Only if you really equal the human existence itself as a form of suffering, then it has nothing to do with marxism at all and is some Buddha or similar idealistic stuff. But even they are not against giving birth to children.

Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word "antinatalist" nobody would bat an eye.

This are different things. Anti-natalism has nothing to do with being against artificially creating people with the aim of making them suffer as much as possible.

Someone who doesn’t exist doesn’t have the ability to consent so the fact they don’t is irrelevant. Something existing determines if we take it into account as Marxist. That’s a major part of being a leftist