I don't know, that's kind of like saying we shouldn't be bothered by slavery if the slaves in question were "bred" for that purpose and wouldn't have existed otherwise. Of course, the fact that line of reasoning is analogous to a line of reasoning with an intuitively repugnant conclusion doesn't necessary help us understand the original line, where our intuitions are generated, or if they're appropriate in the original example.
You might be interested in Parfit's Nonidentity Problem [0].
"The nonidentity problem focuses on the obligations we think we have in respect of people who, by our own acts, are caused both to exist and to have existences that are, though worth having, unavoidably flawed – existences, that is, that are flawed if those people are ever to have them at all. "