>The notion is not _a_priori_. Anyone can observe that
>certain kinds of relationships are needed among mammals for
>the nurturance of their young, and discover the reasons for
>them in evolutionary biology. Absent a mother, there is
>no guarantee that adequate substitutes can be found.
Talking strictly about humans in today's reality in North America, I think that, while having the birth mother (and father) around to nurture children works well enough on average, society has provided some means for lack of a mother. Not to say they're necessarily "better" than a birth mother and father, but they are there, and I imagine they work more or less as well as a "regular family". Hopefully, sooner or later, more socially-minded governments will go into the Great Beyond of the Politically Possible and institute subsidized day-care for all (OH MY GOD!! IS IT AT ALL CONCEIVABLE??!!).
>Marrying for money is a comparative long shot; only the
>romance of imagining future wealth is a sure thing.
I agree, but that wasn't what Kelley seemed to want us to comment on (directly, at least). Anyway, from what she said, her sister probably has this money-bags by his brains if they're talking marriage at this point and she is looking for ways to remove her kids from his presence.
>Hence Mom has the better case, empirically and rationally
>speaking. This is assuming that everyone agrees that the
>young ought to be nurtured, of course.
Yep. If one were going to argue the perils and merits of gold-digging, I would say pretty much as you did; however, we are talking about a real situation, and Kelley seemed to me to indicate that her sister has nearly landed this trout. I took Kelley's question to be referring to her mom's statement ("Why does my mother think that my sister shouldn't call herself a mother?").
Todd