>did ya hear? my sister wants me to take her two kids on for awhile. she's
>just met a 75 yo millionaire and they're talking marriage. but, he doesn't
>want her kids around. if i don't take them, she's going to claim
>incompetence or something and sign them off as temporary wards of the
>state where they'll probably live with a foster family. she's thinks this
>is good in the long run. the wedding will be in two weeks. she's planning
>on getting pregnant right asap so she'll always have access to money,
>according to the prenup.
>
>my mother thinks that my sister shouldn't call herself a mother.
>
>why?
OK, Kelley; I'll bite.
I would say your mom has an a priori notion in her head linking indissolubly motherhood (i.e. the bearing and birthing of children) with proximity (i.e. the one who bears them ought to raise them). The link between these two conditions would be termed (vulgarly) "love" (which is supposed to be a good thing). Thus, if you bear kids, but you will voluntarily part with them, you don't love them, and should not call yourself a mother. My next question is: what do the kids think about what their mom is planning to do (assuming they aren't so small that they can't think along those lines yet)?
Your question has touched a bit of a sore spot with me: How can one justify doing something "heartless" when, logically speaking, it's results could be of great benefit? The old chestnut of ends and means. Your sisters kids might be better off if their mom does dump them now then aids them financially later on (always assuming she doesn't just take all the boodle for herself), than if she were to dump the millionaire for "love of her children" and continue to live with her income as it is now.
Damn you anyway for making me think Kelley. !{)>
Todd the Pseudo-Morose