I do not think you are capable of having a relationship with any life you create that does not in some way, at some time, harm that life or violate that entity’s autonomy. This isn’t because you are bad, it is because coercion is not inherently bad. Therefore, to do some things that you might call “good,” you have to do things that, in the doing, you would call “bad” by any other ethical standard. This is why meta-consent really matters, which is to say, this is why the ability to consent to violation is an important concept for beings-with-power to understand.
The difference when it comes to creating life is that the life-form you create can not even meta-consent to its existence. This is different from the situation in which two already-existing lifeforms can consent to experiences of violation.
In effect, creating life is itself the ultimate nonconsensual act.
This is not different than causing death. Causing death and causing life can both be massive violations of another being’s consent.
I disagree with the notion that creating life is an inherently non-consensual act. Sure, a nonexistent person can’t give permission, but a nonexistent person’s nonexistent autonomy can’t be violated, either. If we accept that consent is a felt sense, then it’s up to the created being, once that person comes into existence, to feel violated by or okay with their creator(s) bringing them into existence. Therefore, the act of creation, when considered as a possible future act, is neither consensual nor non-consensual—at worst we can say it is reckless, that the potential creator(s) risk doing something that will later turn out to have been non-consensual. Once created, if the created being feels that their creation was (non-)consensual, then the act of creation always and forever was (non-)consensual. I think this is crucial to the notion of consent as felt sense–it’s not just that you can take it back, it’s that you can redefine the meaning of the original act.
Consent as felt sense moves consent from a legalistic process of granting permission that occurs before an act to an introspective process of parsing emotions that occurs during and forever after an act. Although this broadly expands which individual actions can be considered violations, it also severely limits which types of actions can be considered always, categorically violative.