antinatalism and pessimism

Once again, I'm not concerned about the wellbeing of the non-existent, but those who will exist and will wish that they did not. And those who will exist in the future (as well as those who exist in the present) are part of an unnecessary gamble that is being made by someone else on their behalf. The future person's wellbeing becomes a salient consideration upon conception; and to continue with the pregnancy is to act without the consent of the foetus. It's ridiculous to say that it's OK to just recklessly keep having children even if you don't know whether you'll be able to provide for them, or even if it is very likely that they will be born with a congenital disability that will cause them a lifetime of suffering. It's not OK just because a non-existent person cannot consent. The wellbeing of future sentient beings is worthy of concern and consideration. That's why there is concern over climate change from people who are likely going to be dead by the time that the worst effects become evident.

And the fact that children of a certain age can be suffering terribly but not consent to be killed, or have the wherewithal is another area of moral concern, for you will be condeming a certain number of young children to a period of suffering. And those with the worst disabilities are being born into a long life sentence that would be considered cruel and inhumane if it was inflicted upon a sadistic torture-murderer.

I don't think that it is a relatively small risk, considering the state of the world at the moment, and the fact that even a large segment of well-off people are evidently very unhappy with their lives and this is reflected in the kinds of behaviours that you would not see from happy, well adjusted people (alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide, domestic abuse, child molestation etc).

If you bring a child into the world in a wealthy nation, then children and adults in other parts of the world will be exploited so that your child can be provided for. And of course the same thing can be said of farm animals who will be kept in poor conditions and killed for their meat.

I don't want a lot of hyper religious people having the power to impose laws on me; especially when there are people who claim to be non-religious who want to impose arbitrary moral limitations on what services I'm allowed to obtain from the state or free market regarding something that affects me alone. In theory, I support open borders, because nobody should own land by dint of having been born on it...but if people are going to gain a foothold and then seek to aggressively impose religion, then that's a different matter. And I never really defended Trump; merely pointed out the undeniable fact that he wasn't as bad as Ted Cruz, and his presidency was in effect unlikely to be much different from a Hillary Clinton one (which is coming to pass).

Globally, the majority of people are living in poor conditions, and it is a small minority who are doing the exploiting. Most of the world;s population isn't part of the middle class of a wealthy, developed nation. So the numbers provided were very optimistic. Sweatshop workers in places such as Bangladesh work for very low wages and in terrible conditions because they have to support themselves and consumers do not collectively demand better conditions (and show willingness to pay a premium so that their clothes and electronic devices can be manufactured in humane conditions).

And just because someone does not already exist, does not mean that there isn't good reason to be concerned with the conditions in which as yet non existent beings will exist. Society already frowns upon parents who have far more children than they can ever afford; so that indicates that the wellbeing of a future person is taken seriously.

But why is an unneccessary 'good' (in that absolutely nobody would miss the absence of it if there were no sentient beings) justified by the toll of suffering that will be exacted from the unfortunate?