While I would tend to agree, it's heavily dependent on philosophy. For instance, the concept of consent is considered less important by some and more important by others. Not only that, but the idea that it is even necessary to "ask consent" to a being that does not exist is questionable by itself, and thus the whole idea is still questioned even here.

There are plenty of other points but the truth is that it is not as clear-cut as you think it is.

Edit: the point about suffering is also questionable, and has always rubbed me the wrong way. It is just an inversion of natalist thinking, isn't it? Ultimately, following it's logic, if we could somehow guarantee that a child would experience permanent, extreme pleasure it's entire life, and would absolutely love being alive, therefore rendering the consent part moot, we would STILL be required to create them for the same reason we're morally required not to create beings who can suffer. I do not know how to resolve this.