[madnak]

Because there are clear communication problems here, I'm going to use poker terms. Presumably we, being on this site, have some understanding of the concepts laid down in ToP.

I'm in a hand of poker and I can raise, call, or fold. Raising is -EV. Calling is 0 EV, and folding (as always) is 0 EV. I choose to call. Then, you come in.

RJT: "Don't call, fold."
madnak: "No, I think I'll call."
RJT: "But calling has 0 EV. How do you justify calling?"
madnak: "Folding also has 0 EV, and I want to see the river. I'll call."
RJT: "But wanting to see the river is emotional! You have no logical reason to call."
madnak: "I have no reason to fold, either. So I'm going to call."
RJT: "Why is calling better than folding? You should fold. Calling is pointless, it has 0 EV."
madnak: "Folding is also pointless, and I want to call. There's no reason I should fold if I want to call."
RJT: "You should fold, calling is passé."

But I'm going to call. Unless you can explain why folding (not having children) is better than calling (having children), I have no reason to follow your advice. I'm perfectly justified in going with my preference and calling.

<font color="white">Actually, I'm going to fold. But who knows, I'm still young.</font>