Do you want to have kids when you're older?

kids are fatal

hi yes, what does that mean for the people who aren't politically adept?

Also for clarification, I intend on having two children.

From what I understand, your argument is that the baby can't consent to being born. Is changing your child's diaper immoral because they haven't consented? Is forcing your child to eat vegetables immoral? Can you not forcefully stop a depressed person from committing suicide? Would it be immoral to feed nutrients to someone in a coma? Now you might be saying that you don't allow them to decide because their mental capacity is somehow impaired, and you'd be right. Something that doesn't exist yet has literally no mental capacity. In addition, life is generally good for most people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivity_offset), so it's not so bad to be alive. You should also be pro-life, which you aren't, because the baby can't consent to be killed either.

I hate kids.

But I wouldn't mind mini-me's running around causing chaos.

But that would mean finding a girlfriend...

Yse

So for one I was half joking.

But let's defend this anyways.

Your first argument is a false dichotomy; basically implying that I either have to say a child's consent does matter or it doesn't matter, and that there is no in-between. If you really do believe that this is the case, then it leads you down some incredibly dark roads. There once was another person on the internet who made this argument, that person being Amos Yee. Amos Yee also believed that children could not give informed consent to anything, and thus their consent was not a factor to be considered. However, where you and Amos differ is that Amos was arguing for the removal of age of consent laws, meaning children could vote, smoke, have sex with adults, and sign long term contracts. If we accept the idea that a child's consent does not matter to any capacity, then Amos Yee is the logical conclusion of it, and I don't think either of us are comfortable with that.
Even with this said, I believe that your framing of the argument is incorrect. I'm talking about the consent of the theoretical person in their entirety, not just in their childhood. The reason I'm pro choice but not pro life is because the life of a minimally conscious organism does not in any way concern me. That said, the life of a theoretical adult who could one day grow up to be resentful of the fact that they are alive DOES concern me. If you think that's unfair, think of the way we talk about climate change. The reason that I and many others care about climate change is because we want a secure future for the generations to come AFTER our time. I am not going to give the same consideration to a fetus that I would to a theoretical fully grown adult.
Your argument that life is generally good for most people is also relative. All that the positivity offset does is make people perceive neutral situations as being mildly positive. Even looking past the fact that "neutral" is an incredibly loaded term that's relative to individuals, what if someone's environment means that the situations they are in aren't neutral? If I'm born into a slum it's likely that most of my life will be sub-neutral.
Even then, I recognize that being alive is generally not bad for most people. But that doesn't make it moral. I firmly believe that circumcision is immoral, but the amount of people who suffer in a tangible way due to circumcision is probably low. The same could be said for other violations of consent; for example, if I were to give a baby a piercing, it's likely that they would not suffer adverse effects because of it. So should we allow piercings in babies? Let's get more abstract; let's pretend that there is a machine that you can be put into. The machine has a 99% chance of fulfilling all of your hopes and dreams, while it has a 1% chance of cutting off your arm. Now, if you forced ten people into the machine, the results are most likely to be positive. However, we wouldn't say that it was moral to force those people to use the machine, because there was a huge inherent risk involved with it. Their consent is what matters in that situation. The same can be said for living; even if your life is likely to be good, the truth is that there's always a chance you will experience immense suffering because of it, and your inability to consent to it is what's important.
Now, what you may be saying is that producing life is for the greater good; in that, it produces the most happiness for the most amount of people. And, if you believe that to be true, I can't call you incorrect. I can, however, point out how dangerous your ideology becomes. You've effectively embraced utilitarianism if you believe that the greater good is all that's important. My abstract example from earlier would be your model society; it would be moral to force all 7 billion humans through that machine because the net happiness would be increased as a result, even if 70 million humans had to lose arms as a result. And while that's bad, it's not even close to the darkest result of utilitarianism. Just to provide one example, if you were a genetic match for 5 people who needed organ donations (all of them needing different organs, of course), then it would not only be OK, but in fact morally correct to kill you and forcibly remove your organs in order to save those 5 people. Obviously that's not comparable to what you're suggesting, but it still shows the inherent flaw with judging an action's morality based only on its outcomes.

the implicit and very incorrect assumption here is that everyone who thinks in a black and white fashion regarding child consent i.e. a child's consent either matters or doesn't matter will inevitably become a raving fucking lunatic like amos yee. i'm not saying it's a correct train of thought but saying burrito1 is similar to someone who depicted lee kwan yew having anal sex with margaret thatcher and was part of a pro-pedophile group simply because of their viewpoints is a massive stretch. they may have the same views on child consent but the conclusions they reach and the way they can act upon their viewpoints can be vastly different. so saying amos yee is the "logical conclusion" is both reductive and misleading. conclusions that are both logical and valid but completely different from each other can be drawn from the same viewpoint / premise. whether these conclusions are sound is a matter of debate but that's how nuance works in the first place, and saying that burrito1's viewpoint can only lead to one logical conclusion is painting things in an overly black-and-white manner as well.