>>77254257I'm not really sure where the examples are supposed to be going or how Benatar's culture is relevant to the conversation at hand, but that aside, I would say moral claims are inherently paternalistic, because by their nature they are telling people how they should act and behave and why. Is paternalism a bad thing? Well, that itself is a moral claim. Are obligations inherently bad? Well, we have an obligation to respect the rights of other people. Munchhausen's trilemma and all that.
As for the argument about mistakes and risks, I've seen people respond from the angle that there is no good reason to have a child in the first place, especially since disease, injury and death are things you inevitably have to go through. It's less that a random car crash may or may not happen, and more that you know your child WILL be run over by a car one day with zero escape from the situation, and choosing to have that child in spite of that. So to speak.
The non-identity problem is an interesting rebuttal itself, but it suffers from being a double-edged sword. As much as one could argue that a "person" that doesn't exist can't be imposed upon, it misses that antinatalism isn't about bestowing a benefit, but about preventing the inevitable car crash. On top of that, it asserts that an explicit refusal of consent is required in order for something to count as "not consenting", instead of the default position that consent not being explicitly given means that it has not been obtained.