As a proud papa, I can attest that, unless you have millions, it is never a good time financially to have a child.

For example, Doom 3 is now out. My computer is too old to run it. I am officially out of luck.

The sacrifice!

Not quite Bill, not quite. I say that her income plus that of her partner(I assumed he made about the median wage, say $25k, alhtough I didn't point that out in the post) would put them into the top 20% of income earners. I agree I might be a little out of touch with US figures and costs but I think that $65k a year, even in NYC, would put you up there in that bracket. I know, for example, that $ 100,000 puts you in the top 5 %.
The "scabrous" part may indeed be a little too strong. It's written now so I'll just have to take whatever lumps come my way.

You probably won't get many lumps, and she may indeed be a "scabrous bitch," but as a pro-choice kind of guy, I have to say that her clarification e-mail came off a bit better than her CostCo piece.

Fundamentally, $65k in NY is not a good salary to support 3 kids, and the larger point is, her insurance and income are not stable.

I was going to do some good-natured bashing on you, Bill, but I'll refrain. The subject (and tone of this discussion) is a bit too serious for that.

Hey, here's an idea. Move to Florida and raise three kids. Problem solved.

Sounds real simple, I guess.

Bill,
I agree that her email comes off better than the Costco piece. Not well enough for my (stated) vehemently pro-life views, but better.
As someone who freelances (although I also have other income) I'm well aware of how fragile that income stream can be.
I guess the respective emphasis we put on the economic arguments can be explained by our basic views of the whole practice. I agree that $ 65k isn't Trump levels of luxury, but then even if her income was $ 6,500 a year I still wouldn't buy the argument.
Sigh. The whole subject is one that seems to create more vitriol than enlightenment, given that so many participants in such conversations start from such completely different premises, as your earlier post and comments on the subject showed, and as my injudicious use of the word "scabrous" also revealed.
Ah well, tempers get the best of all of us at times.

Tim,

I ain't hating you specifically (or at all), but this line is the crux:

but then even if her income was $ 6,500 a year I still wouldn't buy the argument.

The income didn't matter to your greater argument, since by your own admission, you weren't intent on engaging her in terms of moral relativism or practicality. That's what rand a bit weak to me.

This issue is so tricky because the passion and complete disconnect over the fundamental judgment that underpins the argument. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how any degree of rational argument is going to bridge this divide ...

Likely, it's up to science to save our bacon by providing other options.

The real disconnect is between the many couples who can't have children and all the couples aborting their children.

Wrong Sally, wrong. That is not the fundamental disconnect.

Ultimately, the 'socially progressive' will fail to reproduce themselves by continuing to abort their offspring so as to maintain their lifestyles, we'll be overrun by the 'socially conservative' and those to dumb to understand birthcontrol. Excellent, just really...excellent.

I'm sorry. That sounds kinda snarky now that I think about it. I know you said you don't like to talk/read about it and I'm going to stop also. It's just that everytime I think about abortion I see huge mounds of tiny skeletons. It haunts me, y'know? Even if you don't believe in God or Karma or whatever it seems like there will be some kind of retribution or something. I don't know. I'm finished.

"I see huge mounds of tiny skeletons"

That is the fundamental disconnect. It's stark, and it's not just good vs. evil. There are people that do not share this value judgment, or share it to differing degrees, and I don't think that any consensus (or even respect) is possible between large majorities on opposite sides of the issue.

Forty thousand dollars a year is nothing if you live in a real city--and I'm only in L.A. It's worse in New York. This woman wasn't in a position to get pregnant at all. That said, I still wish she'd had the twins placed for adoption.

(As I write, rent in L.A. is $1500-$2000 for a tiny two bedroom in a not-very-chic part of town. In the Bay Area, it's about the same.)

This comment has nothing to do with the morality involved in the argument, just my own little piece of empirical data to the money issue:

I'm a bachelor and was living 60 miles from NYC. My 2br place was 1500/month, with no fitness center, no walking paths, no easy access to shopping...

Was making 65k/yr (contractor, so paid my own bennies), and there was no way in hell that could cover the costs of child-rearing, much less if I actually lived in the city.

As I write, rent in L.A. is $1500-$2000 for a tiny two bedroom in a not-very-chic part of town. In the Bay Area, it's about the same.

In DC, 1000-1200 will get you a metro-accessible studio in the city. I'm sure that teh bay area may be higher than LA ....

"The income didn't matter to your greater argument, since by your own admission, you weren't intent on engaging her in terms of moral relativism or practicality. That's what rand a bit weak to me."

My argument actually comes in two parts. I, personally, don't accept an income or economic argument for whether someone lives or dies. Yes, I know, as someone who writes for publication on economic issues that is indeed a little strange.
The second part is that many do see that as a valid argument. That someone truly poor can, with no or little opprobrium, abort so as to not have to bear the expense. My comment about her income was to address the second of these points, that actually she's pretty well off.

But you're right, the gap in the starting premises is so wide that we'll not bridge it any time soon.

To change the subject completely, I understand from another DC based correspondent that the Brickskeller still exists at 22 and P. Good memories from there a couple of decades ago, the last time I lived in DC. Try the "Old Peculier".
Tim

Is it remarkable that a pro-life argument doesn't annoy you or that the Llamas don't? I wasn't quite sure. Thanks either way.

No comment.

Well, because I'm cheap and because we tend to assume in LA that we cannot live without cars, many of us try to find the cleanest suburbs we can that are within commuting distance to wherever it is we work (there's no real downtown in LA. I mean, it exists, but it's not really the center of the city for most folk). Our public transportation system is still third-rate.

Personally, I'd love to live in a real city and not have to have a car.

But 2K for a studio in a nice area (e.g., Santa Monica or WLA) doesn't sound out of bounds.