It's not an ad hominem to say that you're failing to imagine how else someone could get meaning out of their life. I agree with you that lots of people find having children to be the most important, rewarding experience they have; it does not follow that childless people's lives are lacking in meaning. Parent-child relationships are not the only meaningful ones, for one thing. And then achievements or practices outside of p2p relationships can be tremendously satisfying — meditation, religious experience, mastery of a craft. These are just examples.

Until the paragraph you had just written, you hadn't put forward any argument addressing anything I had said. First you dismissed me as judgmental. Then you dismissed me as having a myopic view of the world. Those are ad hominem arguments.

Regarding what you just wrote, here's me acknowledging that there is meaning to be found outside of children (which, logically, implies that childless people can find meaning):

> I can think of many people in my life who could probably find a lot of meaning without children.

My argument is about playing the odds. Children are the most meaningful thing in most people's lives. Most people do not find many of the other things they spend time on meaningful (their career and, proxied through their spending, consumption of goods and services). As a result, I think it's a pretty good default strategy to have children. Which is why I promote that strategy whenever somebody is on the fence (OP sounded like they were on the fence, after all).

But if you've thought seriously about it and decide that there's something else you'd rather do with your life, then by all means, follow your heart.