A quite common counter-argument to antinatalism is the objection to the idea that it is possible for currently existing people’s actions to violate the rights of currently non-existing people, as those who don’t exist can’t have rights and can’t be harmed. There are all kinds of ways to tackle this argument. I find the one made by the philosopher Joel Feinberg to be most apposite and elegant. Feinberg claims that hiding a bomb attached to a time clock set for seven years from now in a kindergarten would be clearly wrong despite that the ones who would be harmed by that action didn’t exist in the time it was performed. That action is wrong, partly because it violates the rights of the children not to be harmed, even though they did not yet exist and so did not yet possess the right not to be harmed, when the harmful action took place. That proves that it is possible for currently existing people’s actions to violate the rights of people who currently don’t exist but will exist in the future.
It is ridiculous to claim that it is ridiculous to claim that we need to consider whom who doesn’t exist yet, when clearly someone would exist as a consequence of the action in question.

Clearly someone didn’t exist when the decision to create that someone was made. By definition, that condition is given in cases of creating people. To claim that it is impossible for currently existing people actions to violate the rights of currently non-existing people as those who don’t exist can’t have rights and can’t be harmed, is to evade the moral issue and the responsibility for causing harms. Someone who is doing something that would harm someone somehow sometime, must be held accountable for that harm even if the harmed person doesn’t exist when the harmful action has taken place. For instance, the person from Joel Feinberg’s example.

The obvious fact that the created person didn’t exist before being created doesn’t mean that its creators are free of any moral obligations towards that person’s creation. But objecting the idea that it is possible for currently existing people actions to violate the rights of currently non-existing people means that it is not and can’t be morally impermissible for people to create new people no matter the circumstances. And I don’t think that pro-natalists can really stand behind a claim which basically permits anyone to create people under all circumstances, in any congenital condition no matter how harmful, to any parents no matter how abusive and dysfunctional they are expected to be, that there is no such thing as a Wrongful Life, that there is no wrong age to create a person, no inadequate living conditions and etc., everything is morally permissible when creating a person since non-existing people have no rights and it is impossible to harm someone who doesn’t exist. The price that comes with this counter-argument to antinatalism is very heavy and it is that everything goes, and surly few if any would support such a moral stand.
Clearly it is just an excuse. And obviously even the supporters of this claim agree that existing people have a moral duty to avoid causing any possible harm, even if that harm would be caused to someone who would only exist in the future.

I also don’t see how these pro-natalists can face Feinberg’s example in that relation.
I guess they will claim that hiding a bomb attached to a time clock set for seven years from now in a kindergarten, is nothing like creating a new person. But the example of setting a bomb in a kindergarten is not meant to be analogical to procreation, but to demonstrate that it is possible for currently existing people’s actions to violate the rights of currently non-existing people despite that the latter didn’t exist when the actions were made.

But actually a ticking bomb is analogical to procreation. That is because considering the massive harm to others that each created person would cause throughout its lifetime, each person is actually a living set of numerous bombs. And therefore procreation is nevertheless setting a time bomb. Not in a kindergarten, but definitely in the food industry, in the garment industry, in the energy industry, in the oceans, in rivers, in forests, in the atmosphere, in the soil, underground, and in every corner of the globe. And that bomb is not set to blow up 7 years from the time the action took place, but after 9 months, and for as long as the created person exists. And it is not one bomb but thousands of bombs, for the thousands of sentient creatures each created person would harm during its lifetime.

People set a bomb every time they eat, no matter what they eat, because everything has a price. They set a small bomb when they eat a seasonable organic vegetable, and a gigantic one when eating a cheeseburger or bacon and eggs. But they always set a bomb.
People set a bomb every time they dress, not matter what they wear, because every item of clothing has a price. They set a small bomb when they wear organic hemp clothes, and a huge one when wearing a wool sweater and leather shoes. But bombing is inevitable.
People set a bomb every time they use electricity, not matter how it is being generated. They set a small bomb when they use wind or solar power, and a huge one when using coal. But using electricity inevitably involves some bombing, and usually a lot because most people have no choice but to use power generated from fossil fuels.
People set a bomb every time they use transportation, not matter which one. They set a small bomb when they use public transportation, and a huge one when using an SUV or an airplane.
And the same goes for other human activities. They all inevitably involve harming others. The only difference is that in some cases people can choose to use smaller bombs, and less frequently. However, despite having only a bit of wiggle room in that relation, a fact that should have made people much more cautious and careful about every decision they make given that no matter what they do they will harm others, most don’t give a second thought about the size or the number of bombs they are setting.

All humans are mass scale bombs planters, and at some point they are also becoming ticking bombs in a sense of potentially creating more bombs planters, which in their turn would also turn into ticking bombs, and etc. Therefore, the sooner we antinatalists realize that what we ought to do is establish bomb squads, the better.