In his novel Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Richard Bach argues that by staying in this world, we consent to everything that happens to us, no matter how horrible.
Although expanded to include everything in life, it is a similar argument to the one that, by staying within the territory of a nation, you consent to its government and everything that government does.
Some of the same back-and-forth from that thread would work very well here. When I argued against the claim of consent to government by pointing out there is no better place to go, or that it's quite expensive to move to another nation or might not be legally or physically possible, or that consent doesn't work that way with anything else, the reply was, essentially, "That's your problem."
The reply Bach might make to objections to his idea of consent is the same. If you haven't stepped in front of a fast-moving freight train or eaten a bullet, you have chosen to be here. You know what can happen in this world, you've read the news about cancer, hurricanes, rape, genocide, and all of the other evils that can befall people here, and you've chosen to stay and take those risks. Therefore, you have consented to whatever happens to you.
There is no whining in Mr. Bach's world.
Well, at least, not justified whining. To put his argument in context, his idea of consent is the back edge of a double-edged sword. The front edge is absolute freedom: You are free to do anything you like, anything at all. The back edge is, by staying in this world, you consent to anything that is done to you, anything at all.
This may seem to be a pretty grim philosophy. To be fair to Bach, he assumes human nature is basically good and that by embracing this radical freedom we would create a better world. That doesn't change his argument about consent, though.