Observing Nature, scientifically or otherwise, tells us that being a mother, if it were a social role, is ideally possible by the child bearing female and others may only be nurses or patrons. The physiological and psychological exclusiveness of the mother means all the other social entities and all the greatness of science and civilization can only supplement, and never replace, her part in the upbringing of children. Anyone else trying to don her role is simply unnatural.

But of course there is opinion in the contrary also. Modern science flaunts its age old practice of replicating nature and natural processes. Now more than ever humans and their society are evolving frequently against the tide of Nature, and civilization sustains this evolution. Such evolution has also effected the socio-economic distinction of men and women. Now in the industry women are producing as much as men do. So “women are better off in the house” is no longer true.

While such human evolution is true and should morally be supported, going against Mother Nature, when we’re clearly not in a position to, is immoral. Science has not yet found a biological and psycho-social alternative for the natural mother. And while gender equality is great, it never means fusion of the two poles of our species. I don’t believe science never has strived to eliminate sex because it is simply impracticable. So men and women, so uniformly productive as they recently are, don’t have to utilize their worth in the same end of civilization. 

If one person, or sex, is naturally gifted to play a special and vital role in the society, it is her duty to thrive in it. I therefore conclude that in a child’s life its mother is irreplaceable, and, hence, it is she who should rear her child.