it seems that what you imagine is a 'temporary inconvenience of a few families'. what I imagine is a world where every day there is a new 'temporary inconvenience' which you are supposed to endure 'for the good of the many', over and over again -- because that is what will happen when 'heroes' like the one in the article are allowed to run amok.
And it makes sense. When you have a kid, that kid is your priority. There's less incentice to be willing to sacrifice for others who aren't your genetic progeny.
Full disclosure, I personally think having a kid is the single most selfish act a human can do. I don't mind it obviously, but do observe that it's amazing when other people expect me to prefer their offsprings' benefit over anything else.
No, you're already looking out for them. I think it makes sense to treat them like any other human, since that's all they are to me.
A benevolent dictator would do a nationwide cost-benefit analysis, and decide if 30 families having no sleep for a week outweighs 100,000 people getting to work 10 minutes faster for the next decade.
While sometimes our existing legal system makes the same choice as our fictional benevolent dictator, sometimes it doesn't because rather than looking at the big picture, it gets tied up with nuances of wording of ordinances and precident written decades earlier without knowledge of the current situation.
Whenever that happens, on average, people's lives get worse and the economy weaker, compared to an identical country which made the benevolent dictator choice.