Sure it can stand the having and raising of children, unless you don’t love them i guess,,,,
You are making a common mistake. She was only against people being forced into service against their will. She would be against forced abortions in China, and against Lebensborn projects in Germany. Never saw anything where she was against a person who wanted children with someone they loved.
One of the main tenets of Rand's Objectivism is, "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others."
Try raising children with that philosophy. There is no doubt that we are the means to our children's ends, and it is likewise obvious that we are morally bound to be so. We are responsible for keeping them alive; and we are responsible for equipping them for their own adult lives; and they, in turn, have the same responsibilities.
And in the same light, consider this axiomatic statement of Rand's: "Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."
Then let us look at "reality," particularly in the context of raising children.
The evidence from nature tells us one thing in particular: propagation of the species is the primary factor that drives the behavior of every species on Earth, including humanity. We're built for reproduction; and in large part our psychology is centered on finding a mate and/or having sex.
Consider evolution -- the only sort of explanation available under Rand's philosophy. The mechanism of evolution operates, not on the basis of the individual per se, but rather on mating behavior whereby individuals (plural) get together to pass on their genes to the successive generations -- again, individuals become merely the means to their children's ends.
And again, Objectivism simply cannot stand up to the implications of having children.