We don’t tell others what to do but try to convince others to do what we think is the right thing. This is not at all the same thing. Besides, it’s perfectly fine to tell others what to do in some cases. It’s perfectly fine, for example, to tell someone not to scare a cat in the street just for fun, it’s perfectly fine to tell someone not to bully another child, and if you see someone trying to pour ‘date rape drug’ into someone’s drink, it’s perfectly fine to tell them not to do it (and of course also report it to the police). There are many other examples where it is perfectly legitimate to tell someone what to do, or mostly what not to do. In fact all who use this excuse without exception think that there are times when it is not only okay to tell other people what to do but it is absolutely necessary. It is unlikely that there are people who think that you should never tell others what to do. The question here is not a matter of principle but a technical one. In cases where something is unacceptable to them they would like others to be told what to do, and in cases where they themselves are doing something wrong they would like no one to tell them what to do, but of course morality does not work that way, fortunately. The same people who oppose people like us who supposedly tell others what to do would absolutely wish that if we pass by a kindergarten and see the kindergarten teacher beating a child who happens to be their child, that we would tell the kindergarten teacher what to do and even report it to the police. And if it was revealed to them after watching the security video that we stood there and did nothing, they would certainly be angry with us and would not understand why we did not do something to stop it. It is unlikely that an answer like ‘because we don’t believe in telling other people what to do’ would be met with understanding.
The line between cases in which it is legitimate to try to convince people to behave in a certain way and not in another, and cases in which it is not legitimate, is usually quite clear. Cases of putting others at risk of serious harm (relevant in every case of creating new people), compulsion of the circumstances of existence on others (it is always the case that when someone is created, a certain genetic load, a certain environment, certain physical and psychological characteristics, a certain family, a certain society, etc. is imposed on that someone), taking an action that will dramatically affect someone without obtaining their consent in advance, or harming others (every person who is created will inevitably harm others in a variety of ways since it is not possible to exist in a world like ours without harming others), are supposed to be fairly easy cases. They are not considered as such, just because our society is so pro-natalist.
Stating that a certain action is a personal choice does not really remove it from the moral space, certainly not when this action has an effect on others. And specifically creating other people is undoubtedly one of the actions with the most dramatic effects on others.
There is something very ironic in the claim that implies a coercive aspect in anti-natalism, since one of the cornerstones of this position is opposition to coercion – the coercion of existence. And the coercion of existence is not reflected only in the fact that no one chose to exist, or wanted or asked or had an interest in existing before it was decided for them, but also in the compulsion of the circumstances of coming into existence, none of which the person, who is dramatically shape by these circumstances, got to choose.
Although human society supposedly places a great deal of emphasis on the individual and the freedom of choice, it is completely silent in the face of the fact that although there is no more critical decision for the individual than their very creation, although there is nothing more crucial in a person’s life than their very existence, this cannot be chosen by that person. And worse, not only do the created people not consent to existence, but also to each and every one of the conditions of their creation, including their genetic load, their parents, their immediate environment, their initial formative experiences, the uterine environment, the first stimuli during pregnancy, and also those experienced years later, the era in which they were born, the society into which they were born, their culture, their origin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their physical characteristics, their mental characteristics, and many other factors, none of which are subject to the choice of any created person. All these factors are the decisive factors in shaping the life and personality of the created person, and none of them was chosen by the created person. Moreover, the shaping and crucial influence of these unchosen factors cannot really be influenced by the person created as a result of them. In fact, each and every one of the crucial factors that shapes a person, factors that will have a decisive effect on the life of each person, the created people themselves have no choice or influence and consent is not given to any of these factors by any person who is shaped by them.
We don’t tell others what to do. We are suggesting to adult people who can make decisions on their own (and in practice, obviously they are the ones who will decide in this matter), not to make one very specific decision. People who reproduce, on the other hand, not only tell other people what to do (and for at least 18 years and usually much longer), but also decide for other people that they will exist, and the circumstances and characteristics of the creation of other people. They determine that others will exist as well as many of the factors that will forever shape others. And so this argument is, at best, an extreme case of throwing stones from a glass house.