"It can destroy your life to take on a long range sacrifice," is a philosophical statement that makes some presuppositions that need to be defended...as well as some terms that need to be defined. It assumes complete sacrifice to the point of physical and mental exhaustion and to the exclusion of happiness cannot be meaningful, important or even be done joyfully. Notice that there is a difference between happiness and joy. Naturally you are making some assumptions about fulfillment, ultimate meaning, and so forth. In short, you perspective is quite true from a humanistic, self-centered perspective. If however, the truth is that there things more important than self your view is incorrect. I believe this to be the case.
As for it being morally acceptable to abort a child for your own gain, this also presupposes that your happiness is more important than that of anyone else. To make that assumption while claiming moral high ground is untenable to me.
Edit #2 I just noticed your tags. That explains a lot. Her views are interesting, but ultimately shallow and untenable. It has been some time since I have read her and studied objectivism, but it is not one of the more comprehensive, coherent, comprehensive, and congruent worldviews. How a worldview stands up to these "c's" is a good litmus test for it's preference I believe. Of course it has been my experience that debating an objectivist is doubly difficult because of what I would consider the major tenant...selfishness. Who does not want a worldview that says that it is not only ok to be selfish, but preferable and morally correct? Nonsense.