BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?

To give a little background on this post, I'll let everyone know firstly that I've never been a blogger. This is a bit of a professional undertaking, I guess, sort of. We can get into that some other time though. This particular post is a response to a good friend of mine,Brandon, who maintains a very comprehensive and sometimes interesting and/or smart blog at brandonrobison.net. My primary objective for this blog is to address the article in the first link that follows, although the last two have some tangential background on the philosopher Ayn Rand and her theory of "objectivism" around whom and which this whole debate is centered.
http://brandonrobison.net/2008/10/29/the-next-debate/#comments.
http://brandonrobison.net/2008/08/11/how-to-defeat-evil/
http://brandonrobison.net/2008/08/17/the-value-of-need/
Again, we'll be focusing on the first one right now, think of the other two as suggested further reading. For some reason I feel like at one point there was much more than this, but I can't seem to find it, although I'm sure if there is more, Brandon will let me know. Anyway, back to the point.
For anyone who may be reading this (I'm so sorry) who hasn't read anything by Ayn Rand, that isn't, for me anyway, necessarily that bad of a thing. Although I recommend at some point that you do; she is at the least very interesting and at the most a genius messiah OR an evil genius bitch. I'd like to know what conclusion some of you would come to on that. The reason it isn't too much of an issue if you've read any Rand is that it's much easier for me to argue against some random dude with a blog who claims that selfishness is a virtue than it is for me to declare a direct assault on a very influential 20th century philosopher. So I'm taking it easy on myself here. What I will say against Rand is that I feel that there is a reason she used fiction as her primary medium (she used others, but her fiction is the most complete, and widely-regarded of her work, and what even claimed Atlas Shrugged, her last novel, to be her most significant work) for broadcasting her philosophical tenets. Using fiction, she could control the circumstances of her character's lives and create situations where her ideals could be applied most concretely. She could avoid the hazy areas of reality where selfishness as a virtue, or as a driving life force, wasn't necessarily so practical, important, or advisable. That's what I feel is important to think about with this claim of "virtue." Now, please bear in mind that any myriad number of life circumstances can be considered, and there's just going to be no way for me to address them all right now, maybe ever. So, friendly reader, forget about that from the outset. I've decided I'll just bring up a few challenges to some of the fundamentals of objectivism (or more pointedly, "selfishness as a virtue" as Brandon calls it). I'm addressing, most importantly I think, the foundation for all human life.
First let it be said that I don't know how absolutely Brandon really feels his statement should be applied, but I know his relationship with Rand, and I know that Rand's opionion on the application of her ideas to real life are zealously and fervently absolute. Of course, this is a preemptive attack on Brandon's claim, if only to get him to elaborate by writing a complete damn article. So I can't really say for sure that he is going to disagree with me. I guess we'll see! Weeeeeee!
I can't recall (although this might be my error) an instance in any of Rand's novels that shows the application of her theory to parenthood, at least not directly, and certainly not during the actual child-rearing. Since, however, this article is aimed at Brandon, I suppose the question should be posed to him, particularly since he has prompted us all to "tell him he's wrong." So, Brandon, I'd like to know how your theory of "selfishness as a virtue" can be applied to the decision to create life (which, although some people, most notably Rand's characters in her novel, choose to avoid this choice, is necessary to the continuation, success, and prosperity of humanity itself)? Is the decision to have children only virtuous if our plan is to ultimately gain some sort of profit out of them? Parents of children who are sent to work in sweatshops or slave away in fields are therefore virtuous? Children as a commodity are therefore products of their parents' selfish virtue? Of course this can't be the argument, so then am I to presume that the selfish motive, and therefore virtuous motive, behind having a child is the joy it brings to the parents? And if so, how is this any different from that joy, abhorred and execrated by Rand, of giving to any other person in need? Isn't this the same idea of taking on a personal sacrifice for the need of another? And we all know that parenthood in fact requires a great deal of anguish, pain, and plenty of sacrifice, possibly more moments of all of these than moments of joy. Yes, it is true, there is an unavoidable reappropriation of the parents' time, leaving little for their goals, their desires, their selfish pursuits. These become a rare pleasure. Is the parent therefore living an immoral life by not pursuing their selfish desires? And how to reconcile your objectivist lifestyle with the requirements of parenthood, the requirements to give up oneself, one's time, one's mind, one's priorities, goals, sleep, money, food, space, etc., etc., etc? These are necessary sacrifices. And interestingly enough, Rand never had any children herself. I found a quote from her biographer that leads me to assume she never really considered parenthood in her own life or her philosophy:
"Barbara Branden described Rand's attitude towards having children thusly:
It was a responsibility that she was not interested in assuming. When she was writing Atlas [Shrugged], she would sometimes say that she was "with book." The only children she wanted were her books" I wonder why... possibly because they wouldn't fit into a cohesive objectivist lifestyle? None of the heroes of her fiction ever had children either. Plenty of sex, but no children. No children, no future, and yet a philosophy that claims to lead to the betterment of humanity? Not that everyone should have children, but a philosophy that claims to be the saving grace of the world should include some kind of guidelines on objectivism in this regard. The philosophies that have withstanded history provided painstaking and thoughtful analysis of all facets of human life, considered balance in most things, and yet even very few of these were cohesive. Rand's absolutist, unliveable, and intemperate claims are entirely too radical for the ultimate benefit of humanity. I don't believe I'm putting words into Rand's mouth by assuming that the success and prosperity of humanity was an ultimate goal. That's the main objective of any philosopher.
Thus concludes installment one. I'm tired.
I suppose I'll wait for a reply.