I’m going to preface this by saying that while I understand the logic you are using by demanding consent before birth and don’t necessarily disagree with its credibility, it feels wrong to me, and that this is mostly me trying to justify that intuitive wrongness.

As I look for some precedent to compare your thinking to, the closest analogy I can find is someone in a coma. According to your logic, if a person is in a coma and it is uncertain whether they will ever wake up with no prior consent given one way or the other on what to do with them under such circumstances, then they should be kept alive because they have not given consent to pull the plug yet. Does that sound correct to you?

When such a scenario plays out in the real world I believe that right to consent is given to that person’s closest relative(s) to strike a balance between the practicality of making a decision and morality of that decision being made by those who know the person best, attaining an imperfect state of near-consent.

To apply the same thinking to birth, an unborn person-to-be has no ability to consent to their birth, so that consent must come from their parents, who may not know exactly who that person is but have the best idea of the circumstances and growing up conditions they would be born into which would affect their consent when they are able to give it. That, to me, seems like the best near-consent that can be attained.

In more basic terms, I think it should be morally necessary for potential parents to ask themselves “would I want to be born to us in our current and predicted circumstances?” Id both honestly answer yes then that near-consent has been achieved, and if either answers no or they never ask that question, it is not achieved and they should not have a child.

Does that seem rational enough to you?