This statement of yours is frankly rather horrifying in its callous indifference: all else being equal, it is worse if a parent dies.

Not because the parent's life is more valuable per se! Why would you even think that?! It's because the child's life is valuable, and spectacularly vulnerable to the loss of a parent!

Any non-child-bearing people who are as intimately depended upon by people who are at risk of similarly huge impact on one's overall life should receive the same consideration.

As much as, in principle, I fully support all the myriad ways in which people can contribute to a good society and the continuation and improvement of a good society, sans having children, I absolutely cannot support the whole oblivious self-entitled attitude of a lot of people promoting a child-free lifestyle.

There is no path to the future save through our children. If you don't want to have them, fine! It's a complex society--there are lots of ways to contribute. But if you put your own interests so far above those of children that children don't even register (indeed, you disparage caring about children as "pronatalist"--you attack people who have pride in raising children), then we have a problem. It's really hard to even pay attention to the rest of the post, which I admit has multiple good points in it if I can tear myself away from this bit, when coming across indifference like this.

(And not because you're female--the problem is strictly in proportion to the degree of influence you have to cause harm through indifference. Traditionally men have been the greater offenders, and yes, I'm happy to argue as vociferously if I see any posts from men making the same point, or the "children are a woman's responsibility" nonsense: fathers are critically important too unless they've already abdicated their responsibilities or are through their own behavioral problems causing more harm than good.)