Perhaps phrasing your original comment differently would help clarify:

"That's because you don't have children"

You haven't actually proven me wrong in any sense, you've just presented an alternate reality where I would be wrong, which you've framed as an argument against what I initially said. This assumes I am wrong, otherwise you would have agreed with me because there's no logic in presenting a rebuttal to an argument based on nonexistent data (hence the "logical fallacy" part).

The phrase "If you had children..." is always either a case of Bulverism or simple platitude; irrelevant either way. And given the number of times I've heard it, we should probably all be glad I don't have children ;)

My thought process was as follows: You used the word "impervious," which made me think about both physical and mental susceptibility to those issues. If you died before those issues could kill you, then indeed you would be impervious. However, if you had children, then your concern for them could make you vulnerable to the effects of those issues.

That's why I don't really feel that my statement fits the definition of Bulverism. I had no intention of proving you wrong, nor did I assume you were wrong. After all, who knows how you felt about the subject better than you? Because of that, there was really no point in agreeing with you, unless I thought you were lying, and since I don't know you, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. =)

Doing further research, I found the following statement on Bulverism: "The Bulverist’s thought is that if a person’s convictions can be fully explained as a result of non-rational factors then we need not bother about those convictions." Now I consider both the childless and child-laden conclusions to be very rational, though you're probably right in that it's a platitude, I don't hang out with child-laden people often enough. =)