Yes, I think there's a real philosophical tension here that non-vegan antinatalists should grapple with honestly. The core of antinatalism is that bringing sentient beings into existence without consent exposes them to unavoidable suffering, and that this is morally problematic. But if your ethical framework is rooted in reducing suffering for sentient beings and respecting their interests, then it seems selective to apply that only to humans yet to be born. Factory-farmed animals are sentient, they suffer intensely, they have no say in their situation, and their suffering exists right now — not hypothetically. If I'm moved enough by the suffering of potential future humans to advocate against reproduction, I should at least be willing to examine my daily choices that directly fund and perpetuate real, ongoing suffering. I'm not saying antinatalism logically requires veganism in some rigid philosophical theorem, but I do think a person who genuinely cares about suffering as their core ethical concern should at minimum feel some discomfort about the inconsistency. Ethical frameworks that conveniently stop at the point where they require personal sacrifice deserve scrutiny.
I don't think being an antinatalist obligates me to be vegan, and calling it 'inconsistent' misunderstands both positions. Antinatalism is a specific philosophical stance about the ethics of procreation — it's centered on the unique problem of bringing a non-consenting being into existence and imposing a life on them. That's a distinct moral category from how we treat beings who already exist. Veganism is a valid and admirable ethical choice, but it stems from different arguments — animal rights theory, environmental ethics, objections to exploitation — not necessarily from antinatalism's core logic. Many antinatalists arrived at their position through concerns about overpopulation, climate impact, or human-specific consent theory, none of which automatically imply veganism. Additionally, ethical consistency doesn't mean every moral position must unify into one grand theory. I can believe abortion should be legal without being a pacifist, or support euthanasia without endorsing capital punishment. Compartmentalized ethical views aren't inherently hypocritical — they reflect nuanced reasoning about distinct issues. Expecting antinatalists to be vegan implies there's one master principle driving both, and that's simply not true for everyone who holds antinatalist views.