I was thinking recently about death, again, and reasoned that, just like how a lot of atheists believe that the burden of proof rests with Christians, as the natural state of affairs is non-belief in any deity, the burden of proof rests with anyone who wishes to commit suicide, since although eventually we all do die, living is the norm. If you have no evidence that death would be better for you, then you must keep living, simply because the world is innately biased so that you will stay alive, not in a Schrödinger's cat-like state between living and death, if you are undecided as to whether you should live or die. And the same thing, I think, is true with regards to natalism and its nemesis. People do not naturally exist. Children are not brought to parents by storks, whether they want them or not. Babies do not exist unless we make them exist. So I think, to an extent, we antinatalists have never really needed to convince anyone of anything (if we lived in a world filled with androids, that is). The ball has never been in our court, as it were. If you wish to bring a child into this world, then everything rests upon you to prove that it is a good thing, for if you do not choose to have a child, no such child would be in existence - that is the natural state of affairs, the world is biased in this way.
The problem with this is, what counts as proof that children should be brought into existence? Well the usual manner in which we decide whether an action is good or not is to simply consult our emotions. But a human life, a human life that does not belong to you, is a lot more important than that. So no, I don't think you can use a selfish reason in place of a real argument here. You have to turn to that which humans SHOULD generally use for all things important, negative utilitarian moral reasoning. Are you reducing the total suffering of the world via this action? Possibly, since that child could become a moral paragon of virtue. But the more likely outcome is that the total suffering of the world will actually increase, via stress, boredom or general ill-feeling - in which case your proof for having a child being a good thing has gone out the window.
Again we prevail. Huzzah! But if any economist or 'rationalist' of Bryan Caplan's ilk does read this blog (which I sincerely doubt), do be prepared to either suffer an outright rejection ("Everyone thinks being born is a good thing so the burden of proof lies with you!") or reasons that go against negative utilitarianism (despite how ordinary utilitariansim has some weird consequences - like allowing humans to be tortured for the greater amusement of other humans). But you should be used to that by now.