The Leo parent - A contradiction in terms?

In modern astrology the 5th house of children may be considered to be the natural house of Leo, but in hellenistic and medieval astrology Leo is one of the barren signs. Even though numerous factors need to be taken into account before you can even suggest sterility, still, Leo is not a fruitful sign by itself. If we don't take this literally, because, as Lilly mentions, even Jupiter in Cancer (albeit retrograde) in the 5th doesn't guarantee children, what can be the meaning of Leo's barrenness, viewed from a modern perspective?
In defense of modern astrology, Leos seem to get on very well with children. Sometimes, it appears as if they draw children like a magnet. They just know instinctively how to treat them. All fire signs share a childlike enthusiasm that children can naturally relate to, but Leos especially tend to create more significant bonds with them. I think this is because the other two fire signs can behave like children, both for good or for ill, but Leos ARE children at heart. And unlike Aries, who very often fails to mentally reach adulthood, Leos can successfully integrate their childlike qualities into their adult personality.
We must also keep in mind that it's not easy being a child. We may reminisce about our happy and carefree days, but it seems that we forget how irritating it is to be brought into a world where you know nothing and are surrounded by tall and grown up people who seem to know everything and have all the answers. And not only that, but grown up people tend to get annoyed by you, bored with you, find it difficult to pay attention to what you say and generally find you a nuisance, no matter how much they love you, because you are not their equal. And then a Leo comes along and everything changes. There is at least one person in this world of hostile adults who actually understands, who actually treats you as if you are someone that matters.
But, alas, this happens only with other people's children. As we all know, there is a huge difference between liking children and actually raising them. Bringing up children involves a lot of hard and dirty work that Leos just aren't willing to do. Being a parent demands, at least for a certain period of time, that you put another person's interests first. Leo, however, being the divine child, doesn't want to share his/her divinity. In a sense, Leo is the archetypal father. The person who will show the world to his child, but not the person who will provide the necessary nurturing. That is, I think, what's really hiding behind Leo's barrenness. Leos like children but don't really want to have them. Especially for a woman, if she has planets in Leo, this may prove difficult, as she may have a natural aversion to motherhood, contrasting, therefore, with the stereotypes of her gender.
Since the sign of Leo comes immediately after Cancer, then at this stage the person must break free from all family chains. Liz Greene says that Apollon, the God connected with the astrological Sun, is also the breaker of family curses. This is more true in Leo, the sign the Sun rules, than in any other sign. We all carry our family sins and curses and, unfortunately, in most cases, we simply pass them on to the next generation. Eventually, however, a child gets born that has the role of the redeemer. The journey of the curse ends here. And sometimes, the only safe way to break a family curse is to not reproduce yourself.
In modern psychological terms, Leo is the sign of self-consciousness par excellence and that is his prime objective in life. So, if I am here so that I can know myself, I must make sure that there are no distractions. I have to completely devote my time to ME and I don't want other people's paths crossing my own. Or, if they cross it, I must gain more self-knowledge from this encounter. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.