(I posted this on Mastodon first but I think I can get some more thorough replies here due to the lack of a character limit.)
Due to a post on r/antinatalism, I've been thinking lately on the ways antinatalism can be problematic. The community can be pretty ableist, for example, suggesting that disabled peoples' lives aren't worth living. It argues nobody should be born, but people with disabilities and chronic illnesses always come up as an example of why people should not procreate.
I think this is pretty shitty reasoning in the first place, as you can't decide for another person whether their lives are worth living or not. It's never come up in a conversation I've seen, but I wonder if this line of reasoning also applies to other marginalized people and the working class as well. For example, a rich person will have more resources to ensure the success of their child than a working class person, and so that pressure to not procreate may fall more in the working class person. It may be similar for for white people vs POC due to the disproportionate violence and poverty POC endure.
My reason for being an antinatalist is that all life comes with risks and you shouldn't force that risk on a potential person who, by its nature, can't consent, but I wonder if the whole idea of antinatalism is flawed due to the previous considerations. If it is an idea that is inherently ableist and puts an unequal pressure on the marginalized, I'm not sure I could remain an antinatalist.