Yes, of course. That's like asking me 'Would you trade version 1.0 for version 2.0' - the answer is obvious. 'Immortality', as it stands, or rather having children is our subconcious desire to actually remain alive, immortal if you will, by continuing our existance through our kids. 'Leaving a print', and 'Passing-on our harritage', and all that. And I see what you did there, it's a very good question, which in a way determines you to be either selfish or altruistic. That would be the case, however, if I myself don't find both options to be equally selfish, in most cases. Having kids is an act of selfishness, because most people do it, not for the sake of 'giving life' etc., but because they desperately wish to continue their own, in a way, and because they realise that that would be impossible, they decide to have kids, and so content themselves with the thought, that their seed has been laid (literally). The result of that are those kids with mommy/daddy issues, who blindly follow in their parents' footsteps and constantly seek approval of them.
So, in conclusion, I'd say I'd take the real immortality option, for the sake of curiousity. Plus, who's to say that I can't adopt a few kids here and there, and I mean, it would basically be the same, and I'd be doing the world a favour, and the kids as well, so double-win. Yeah, sure, I'll never see my own paraplegic retard sprout out of some desease-ridden junky, but hey! that doesn't matter when you're fucking Dracula, now does it?