This exchange is really rather amazing. Especially in the context of…
In the first quote we have two processes for reaching a conclusion - at least it is assumed that there are two different processes. Process A is rational, process B is emotional, therefore process A is right. As if one cannot rationally reach incorrect conclusions (or emotionally come up with correct ones). I’ll leave aside the issue of whether one can assess something like ‘readiness to have a child’ (at least in most of the West) without emotional and intuitive processes being involved.
The second quote is putting pressure on the binary thinking present in quote one. That this is not clear strikes me as very odd.
Then that this all happens not far from the last quote, where Superior promotes life and Inferior promotes death just adds even more strangeness. Are we to suppose that rationality in this instance is inferior because it is promoting death. Or are we to assume that the rational man could somehow weigh, rationally, the total sum of ‘life’ including things like, say, added stress since the man must work more overtime to pay for Huggies. And this is a reduction of life, his, and one can create a mathematical inventory and decide that there is less life with the added child if the pregnancy is allowed to come to term.
And just a jump to the side: wouldn’t it be strange if emotional decisions were inferior and wrong, per se, given that the most powerful and dominant animals on earth, including of course, us, are social mammals with powerful emotions. You would think we would be more like robots if emotionless decision making was the best.
(no offense intended towards Araneae, though I must say that in general they seem to make decisions based on preferences rather than emotions)