I agree with all of that.

However, I do not agree with giving this information but not the information that people with twoish children (including women) are expected to live longer than those who aren't, and various other health-protective effects of having children.

So yes, you want to know about preeclampsia and gestational diabetes and (largely because of these two) elevated risk of stroke. You also want to know about better rates of surviving stroke if you have children, and about lower lifetime breast cancer rates. (But also elevated near-term breast cancer rates, so you can alter your attentiveness to screening.) And so on and so forth.

People deserve the full relevant information when making important life decisions. Not getting any information is bad, but getting the upsides without the downsides or the downsides without the upsides is also bad. (Getting "it's dangerous" without degree of risk is also bad, and for most people, getting rates of risk is also not helpful without other risks to put it into context.)

And it's certainly wrong for someone to cry that being pressured to have children is wrong because there is a risk of death when all cause mortality is decreased. That's literally backwards, on average (if the study generalizes outside of Japan)! (Individual cases may vary; if someone is at high risk of preeclampsia because, for instance, they had a mild case of it on a previous pregnancy, then obviously having a second child would be expected to increase mortality even though averaged over everyone, a second child decreases all cause mortality, at least in the Japanese study.)