"None of these things justifies having a child unless another, additional condition is satisfied: you must be as certain as possible that you'll be able to provide for that child. Period.

Obviously, for most of us, socioeconomic security is never a hard-and-fast guarantee. But we can make educated guesses about our future, can force ourselves to be appropriately risk-averse, and can basically treat the decision to create another human being w/the gravity that decision deserves."

What you're saying is that having a child involves a tremendous responsibility, and unless a couple (it takes at least two to make a baby) has the resources to bear that responsibility, they shouldn't take it on.

And I agree 100%!

But the problem is, who determines how much security is enough? How much money in the bank, how many supportive family members, how much of a career is needed before a couple can say they have the resources needed to have a baby?

This isn't an idle question; it's the crux of the whole problem, because unless somebody has several million bucks stashed away in low-risk investments set up in a trust for the kid, there's always a risk that bad things will happen and the resources won't be enough.

"I dunno the author's precise circumstances so I can't say I personally would fault her on the facts of the article above, but I think it's grotesquely irresponsible and selfish to suggest that childbearing is some kind of...right...that every woman has."

Do you think that when she got married she ever imagined that she'd be divorced? Or that when she had each kid she ever imagined that Dad wouldn't be there supporting her and them?

IOW, at the time she made those decisions, the seemed reasonable!

"Life is unfair."

So nobody except millionaires should have kids? That's essentially what you're saying.

How about this: If you ever are the victim of a crime, natural or manmade disaster, or an accident, we'll all just say "Life is unfair" and not do anything?

IOW, does the gender of the poster matter?

"So your answer would be "then move!" *cough* Excuse me, but have you ever had to move when you were short on money?"

The bigger problem is getting a job in the lower-cost area. Often areas are lower-cost because there are fewer jobs and/or they pay less.

"Again, you are blaming Ms. Ryan for choices she made when she still had faith in the American Dream, and the system."

Also, when she was married.

Which raises a question: why the divorce? Was it her choice, his choice, or both?

It must be remembered that divorce and child-support laws vary all over the place, governed by state law and the particular court that decides the issue. And one big feature of "no fault" divorce is that if one party wants out, the other party can't stop it.

"Ever notice that income is not rising, but the cost-of-living is?"

Both are rising; the trick is that costs are rising faster. So what was an adequate emergency fund or safety net 5 years ago isn't adequate today, yet most people's ability to increase it is reduced.

The most insidious part is that it's happening slowly, and has been happening for the past 30-odd years. A little here, a little there, never a big thing all at once. Each little bit is trivial, but the overall effect is enormous. As Lewis Caroll wrote, one needs to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place.

I agree that Ms. Ryan probably isn't truly "poor", just struggling. Which only proves her point.

The real reason for all the nastiness is that Ms. Ryan is saying that the American Dream is broken. That's not what some folks want to hear.

One last question: where is her blog?