wait, that was just the follow up. this is the main thing

There is a thing called nuance, and grey areas, which I have no doubt you have no trouble recognizing in other areas (You wouldn't for example say that pats on the back are wrong because of the ambiguity when it comes to how forceful a tap has to be for it to wrong would you?) but for some reason refuse to see it here. You expect an either "Yes this act is wrong in all cases" or "No this act is not wrong in all cases". I know it makes natalism way easier to attack, and so makes AN look better when you make natalism an absolutist position but then you're not actually arguing with a position anyone holds seriously.

The same act can be wrong sometimes and right sometimes depending on situation. I’m sure you already know this. So stop being ridiculous.

Me: Now, if your parents are not helping you attain education that's wrong, because they're not deliberately helping your wellbeing.

Ah ok. So what makes one imposition wrong and the other not is that in the education case, it is "needed for your wellbeing" but for birth, no one is saddened by not being born, so it's not "needed for wellbeing"? That's how I understand it.

So are you committed to: Any act that is not necessary (not doing it doesn't cause harm) is wrong to do without consent?

If someone throws a surprise birthday party for a friend is that wrong? It fits the criteria. It is A- Not necessary/Not conducive to wellbeing (the birthday boy had no idea it's coming so wouldn't suffer for lack of it) and B- It could potentially be harmful (from a heart attack to just an awkward social situation)

What about giving gifts to unsuspecting people out of kindness? That also matches the criteria.