The consent argument

Here is a thought experiment. To those of you who don't see the consent argument as important or even relevant to antinatalism: I'm curious how you view this comparison. To those of you who do see the consent argument as important and/or relevant to antinatalism: I'm curious if it is a good comparison and if it could be improved.

Imagine someone shoots you in the spine, paralyzing you from the waist-down and forcing you to live in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. You despair in discovering that you will suffer in some capacity for the rest of your life. Although it takes time to adjust to your condition, you eventually find joy in playing wheelchair basketball. You meet others who also find joy and comfort in playing with people in the same condition. You are happy in your present situation.

Does that make the actions of the shooter morally ok, given that you are now happy in your condition?

Was it right and/or good for you to be shot, since you ended up feeling good in your new life?

Now let's change the words.

Imagine someone creates you, forcing you into existence and making you work for your happiness for the rest of your life. You despair in discovering that you will suffer in some capacity for the rest of your life. Although it takes time to adjust to your existence, you eventually find joy in [sports/arts/school/whatever floats your boat]. You meet others who also find joy and comfort in doing these activities with people who were also forced into existence. You are happy in your present situation.

Does that make the actions of your parents morally ok, given that you are now happy in your condition?

Was it right and/or good for your parents to force you into existence, since you ended up feeling good in your new life?

Edit: I'm realizing that this could be better related to the consent argument. It's addressing the statement "But my children are happy in their lives, therefore I'm justified in bringing them into existence." So here's another question to focus the discussion:

In the above scenario, was the shooter justified in shooting you, given that you find happiness in your new condition?

Was it necessary for the shooter to obtain your consent before shooting you, given that you are now happy in your condition?

I think the answer to this will be a unanimous "no", but I'm curious how you all would relate it to the issue of consent.