If you're unsure wether someone would consent to not having sex, the answer is no. Therefore... If someone is unconscious it's okay, or even morally necessary, to have sex with them in order to not deprive them of a decision they don't have the agency to make themselves?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Put like that, it's of course not a conclusion which feels right. Which is interesting and which I would explain by the "greater goods" which are relevant in such considerations.

In your example, the greater good is an autonomy about one's own body and what happens to it in presence of other people. An issue which we've developed understanding and respect for one's individual will.

In the context of natalism however, there are different goods at play depending on how you look at them:
Antinatalism: "creating new humans is wrong, because they have guaranteed suffering. Allowing that will cause unneccessary suffering."
Pronatalism: "Creating new humans is okay, because their life can be joyful (and/or brings me joy). Denying that robs the possible being from this experience." (Depending on who you ask, it might not even be necessary to be joyful, as the experience of life is already seen as valuable by itself.)
In other words: Antinatalism's greater good: preventing suffering. Pronatalisms greater good: allowing joy and the experience of life.

But again, asking for consent here is pointless, as I've detailed before. If you want to have sex with someone who is unconcious, they are able to form on opinion about that before the incident, possibly during the incident and directly after the incident. In other words, they have agency about this. With unborns it is different: they don't exist and have no agency prior or during the incident of being born. They develop this ability during their childhood. Then you can ask. Without such a capacity I don't see any value in moral evaluations. Because to me, this is currently almost similar to asking a stone whether it wants to exist in this universe.