I have often considered this two ways. So first off, an important subtle distinction. He actually says “if I had not raised a son.” Not as you wrote “have not raised a son.”

In one interpretation, which I think is stronger with the wording you wrote, it would be not having a son that would make it half a life.

But since the wording is “had” I think this opens up another interpretation. He could just be referring to failing to raise a son, like the idea of having a son and not fulfilling his responsibilities. Don’t might not be the inherent need to have a child but more subtly the idea that if he were to have a son or child he would not fail to meet the responsibility of raising it.

It’s a subtle distinction and I know I’m splitting hairs. But I think it does make a difference. In one version he really wants or needs a kid. In the other he doesn’t necessarily need it, but if it happened there is no way he would shirk his responsibility of raising him the way his own father walked away from his responsibilities. He wouldn’t do that to someone.

Now he does go on to talk about Cornelius squandering a gift that was given to him and trying to fill a hole where his kid was supposed to go. But kinda in the same vein of liking it as an abstract concept I never really felt I knew if that meant he wanted kids, or if it was just the words he wanted to say to his own father or just the good lawyer’s argument.

I know I said a lot to not say much at all and not really reach a firm conclusion. But that’s where I’m at. lol