Sunday, September 11, 2005

More Nonsense From the Usual Suspects vis-a-vis Artificial Wombs

Britain

August 30, 2005

From foetus to full term - without a mother's touch

By Ainsley Newson

ARTIFICIAL wombs, to bring a foetus of a human being to full term outside a woman’s body, could become a reality within 20 years, scientists have predicted. This could present great advantages in the case of very premature babies, which could be nurtured to full pregnancy term in artificial wombs, thereby reducing the risk of long-term developmental problems.

Such technology might also appeal to those who cannot have children naturally, such as women with a damaged uterus or no uterus at all, or to gay couples. The need for surrogate mothers could disappear. Experiments with human embryos, mice and goats have already had some success.

But the technology raises significant ethical challenges and should not proceed without full ethical debate, Frida Simonstein, of Ben Gurion University in Israel, said. She told a weekend conference in Barcelona on ethics and emerging medical technologies that these problems were not insurmountable.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1755908,00.html



Of course the primary consumers of this Frankenstein technology would be men.

Once again we can see the jealousy of men towards mothers, along with the male determination to be in charge of everything again, is leading straight to hell in a hand basket.

Although the artificial wombs are being painted as a technology to be used for the good of “very premature babies, which could be nurtured to full pregnancy term in artificial wombs, thereby reducing the risk of long-term developmental problems” this is the usual baloney that we’ve heard so many times before to such dire results.

Just as encouraging men to be better, more involved fathers was supposed to be soooooo much better for women and children when, in fact, we now know where that led. To the threat of a custody fight now being used as a club to terrorize every mother, to millions of mothers becoming non-custodial parents some rarely if ever seeing their children again and to 350,000 parental abductions occurring annually, many committed by men trying to get custody through loopholes in state laws.

This situation will be no different for our society. In fact, I predict it will be a total disaster.

Having babies in artificial receptacles separates an infant from a mother, when critical bonding should be taking place. It is even thought that infants communicate with mother in utero, thus prepping mother for the stress of sleep deprivation which will be taking place when the infant is born and needs practically round-the-clock care. So whoever will be taking care of the new infant will not have gone through this critical preparation and thus be impatient and uncaring when the infant wakes them in the middle of the night.

Actually there is some indication that fathers are more responsible for shaken baby syndrome then mothers and this is probably the reason. Impatience with a crying infant can lead to many bad things happening to said infant.

Of course this is just one issue vis-à-vis the critical mother/child bond, but there are others. We are just actually beginning to uncover the many inexplicable messages that Mother Nature has provided for infant and mother to communicate to each other in utero, as she attempts to facilitate the bonding necessary between mother and child for the optimum beginning in the life of an infant. This is certainly not the time to start more gender-neutralized engineering experiments on infants and mothers to see how far we can push the envelope and still have a mentally and emotionally-stable child produced.

These artificial wombs will allow men to have children willy nilly with no mothers involved, equivalent to going into a pet store and picking out a puppy to bring home. We have no idea of what the long-term effect of this will be on children or even on our society. It may ultimately cause an evolutionary rupture (for want of a better term) for women between our past and the future of motherhood that will prove impossible to mend if we need to at a later date when this idea fails, as the odds are high that it will. For who knows, if after a generation or two of women not being mothers due to these artificial wombs, if any of them will ever even want to be mothers again. Similar to what happened when formula in bottles was introduced. Now few mothers breast feed anymore, even though it has been shown time and time again to be better for infants.

Like the infamous Humpty Dumpty of nursery school fame, you cannot always put things back together again after they’ve been shattered.

Feminism has been unsuccessfully trying to sideline the idea of the mother/child bond for decades. This artificial womb might finally be the weapon they ultimately need to do this.

12 comments:

PolishKnight said...

Now that's pretty funny
NYMOM, this article is funny to us men in the same way as men worrying about their wives taking over his DOOM and QUAKE computer games. In other words, you needn't worry about men buying up wombs to have children without women: It's simply laughable!

There's the joke that the way to make a man run away in fear is to hand him a baby and while this stereotype is an exaggeration, the fact is that men largely don't go "ga-ga" (pardon the pun) as women do about kids. Men are unlikely to want a kid without having a spouse around if given a choice.

I think it's rather charming to read your concerns that men are trying to become more "involved" fathers to the point of wanting to take away custody of children from women out of spite or some misplaced notion of liberation. I don't doubt this does happen from time to time, but it's the exception rather than the norm.

Back to the subject: I think the artificial womb would most likely be used by many women who don't want stretch marks or to extend their childbirth years. I think the "communication" between mother and fetus is overrated and no doubt could be automated. If anything, I think it would be of GREAT help to all the poor children being born to mothers who smoke or use narcotics. Of course, this runs the risk of the technology being used by social services to "gain custody" of a fetus and toss it in the artificial womb at the hint of her drinking a glass of wine with dinner. But that doesn't change the potential benefit of the technology in decreasing birth defects.

Your analogy about formula feeding is definitely worth considering. My wife and I were both formula fed as infants and we both believe that it has resulted in us not being as healthy as adults otherwise. Many women are now going back to breast feeding. However, the formula is still a very viable choice for women who have problems with breast feeding.

I find your claim that men are "baby shakers" to be both unsupported and well, insulting. What evidence do you have of this? Note that most child abusers are either the mothers _OR_ their live-in boyfriends and not the actual fathers of the child.

I hate to say this, really, but I think you're concerned about the harm to the perception of mothers as madonna like figures and blaming it on MRA's when the reality is that it's a function of the welfare state and feminism indulging bad motherhood and career women. Don't get me wrong: Men have their flaws but the state has been going after them for the past 40 years. Women are just behaving so badly in recent years that it's becoming impossible even for the mainstream media to ignore.

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, this article is funny to us men in the same way as men worrying about their wives taking over his DOOM and QUAKE computer games. In other words, you needn't worry about men buying up wombs to have children without women: It's simply laughable!"

Is it. Ten years ago I would have said you're right. Today I'm not so sure. I think this is all part of the ongoing mental illness of western man...who has the most wonderful life of all men in the world yet still spends his time complaining about everything.


"Men are unlikely to want a kid without having a spouse around if given a choice."

Yet according to the US census millions of men fight for and get custody today, even of infants.

So no, this is not so far-fetched as you think. Again all part of western man's mental illness...


"I find your claim that men are "baby shakers" to be both unsupported and well, insulting. What evidence do you have of this? Note that most child abusers are either the mothers _OR_ their live-in boyfriends and not the actual fathers of the child."

Most parents are NOT abusive, thus I rarely use stories of abuse unless I'm trying to prove specific points, not the way your site does to post every nutty story about mothers or women out there.

However regarding "Shaken Baby Syndrome" if you look deeper in my blog you will see an article and some stats about it.


"I hate to say this, really, but I think you're concerned about the harm to the perception of mothers as madonna like figures and blaming it on MRA's when the reality is that it's a function of the welfare state and feminism indulging bad motherhood and career women."

MRAs and feminist are co-conspirators on this issue. Both are moving us towards an androgynous society.

PolishKnight said...

About complaining about everything: I think that's just a general function of everyone in our western democracy due to freedom of speech and a wide availability of media. The civil rights movement certainly lauded complainers.

About the US census stats showing "millions" of men getting custody: A lot of these men are doing so because they sincerely want to protect the child from an abusive or substance abusing mother. That's why such men are successful: They pay thousands of dollars in lawyers to get a child under these conditions where women get them by default. This is not the same as men putting a zygote in a Betty Crocker Gestation oven and having kids without a woman altogether. They're just making the best of a bad situation for the interests of the children.

I do appreciate your point about men wanting custody more especially as family court has made it preferable to do so. With child-support awards often going into the bulk of a person's pre-tax income, it makes simple financial sense to fight. Once again, I don't think this is due to men especially wanting kids as single parents for the reasons women do.

I never said that most mothers are abusers but rather observed that most abusers are mothers or step-parents/boyfriends of the child if only because of the statistical probability that most primary caregivers are women. I challenge you to show otherwise.

You have offered me a scavenger hunt to find statistics. I'll provide you with links:

http://www.glennsacks.com/sources_page_on_fathers.htm
(Granted, this author is a MRA) but he provides sources:

"Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female."

That's quite a mountain for you to climb over to make a credible claim that most baby-shakers are men.

I think the MRA's goals IN THE SHORT TERM is merely to address men's rights issues rather than focusing upon a gender-neutral society for it's own sake as the feminists do who have a lesbian/leftist agenda. Their rhetoric may appear to be gender neutral if only because that's the most powerful and common nomenclature in use today. When in Rome...

Heck, you've used a lot of rhetoric (not being insulting but using the word "rhetoric, BTW) that sounds so much like feminism that you initially confused a lot of MRA's on mensnewsdaily. I'm a bit more open minded. My point is that you can't judge people's goals (including feminists) simply by their ideological rhetoric but rather the ways they apply it.

I'll repeat my main point: MRA's in no way support a huge socialist goodie program for mothers such as welfare or partial birth abortions at the expense of society, men, and even children as do feminists whose agenda is to empower a certain class of women. This baby, pardon the pun, and it's bathwater is totally the property of feminism and also traditional chivalrous notions supported or tolerated by a majority of American women AND MEN for their own ends. Fair enough? Really, I'm asking that question honestly: Does that sound like a fair assessment (even if you disagree with it?)

NYMOM said...

"I do appreciate your point about men wanting custody more especially as family court has made it preferable to do so. With child-support awards often going into the bulk of a person's pre-tax income, it makes simple financial sense to fight. Once again, I don't think this is due to men especially wanting kids as single parents for the reasons women do."

Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong but I'm not assuming that male greed won't extend to using artificial wombs to have children for themselves...after all there are other financial benefits and such besides tax-free child-support that follow children...



"Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female."

This is another lie put out by men, as I've shown in another post on my blog. Like the missile gap of the cold war, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a 1001 other statistical lies put out by men to get their own way. Actually this is the MAIN method men use...as you control all governmental branches: both houses, the Presidency, as well as the courts, the Pentagaon and most mass media...statistical lies...


"My point is that you can't judge people's goals (including feminists) simply by their ideological rhetoric but rather the ways they apply it.

I'll repeat my main point: MRA's in no way support a huge socialist goodie program for mothers such as welfare or partial birth abortions at the expense of society, men, and even children as do feminists whose agenda is to empower a certain class of women."

No. You don't support the feminist goal to expand the welfare state but just as socialist and communists don't support EVERY goal of the other, but support the main agenda of a larger state; so too MRAs and Feminists BOTH support our society becoming more androgynous with men and women essentially doing the exact same thing.

50% of men having custody of children, 50% of prisoners being women, 50% of armed forces being women, etc., etc., etc.,

So you're both alike in that respect.

PolishKnight said...

Hello NYMOM,
Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong but I'm not assuming that male greed won't extend to using artificial wombs to have children for themselves...after all there are other financial benefits and such besides tax-free child-support that follow children...

Golly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at what you just wrote. Allow me to explain: For responsible parents, children are adorable little burdens or at least perceived as such. News articles are full of stories about working and middle-class mothers (married or single) strained by "juggling" home and work. This point presents you with a new opportunity to talk of your experiences whereby I'm ignorant: How much of this perception is valid? (No need to pay me a finders' fee just have fun and go with it)

Irresponsible parents, on the other hand, generally only can "profit" from their children by putting the children into harms way enough to qualify for benefits or special treatment by family court (while at the same time not being such a lousy parent that they lose the kid outright.)

A former girlfriend of mine who worked as an attorney in family court told me that she sometimes saw women bringing their children to court in rags in order to justify a larger support issue. Even a poor family can always afford to have their children show up in court with decent but inexpensive clothes bought at Ross so what is the judge thinking by giving the mother more money? "Hey! If she's starving the kids in an Oliver Twist fashion now, give her some more just to reduce the bleeding a little"?

As I said, it's feminism's love affair with the empowered single woman whether through divorce or welfare that has ruined the social perception of motherhood far more than MRA or litigious fathers fighting for custody.

"Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female."

This is another lie put out by men, as I've shown in another post on my blog.


With all due respect, the source quoted for this statistic is the Dept. of Health and Human Services, hardly the place for MRA to shop for sympathy. And I'm asking you for the second time: Cite your source!!!

Like the missile gap of the cold war, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a 1001 other statistical lies put out by men to get their own way. Actually this is the MAIN method men use...as you control all governmental branches: both houses, the Presidency, as well as the courts, the Pentagaon and most mass media...statistical lies..

Pardon the pun, but this is a rather broad point out of the scope of our discussion. Surely if us men at the last secret meeting of the Patriarchy were really in charge of things, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion, now would we? GW wouldn't have gotten our memo to kill off any rights for women in family court or the workplace and that would be that. We could have just taken what we wanted.

Anyways, I'll bite (you make it so tempting): I disagree with GW going into Iraq so quickly but think the accusation leveled at him (ironically, by the same media you say is in cohoots with him) that he "lied" about WMDs. The same "lies" that were said by Bill Clinton and John Kerry before (and GW roasted Kerry on this during the debates.)

No. You don't support the feminist goal to expand the welfare state but just as socialist and communists don't support EVERY goal of the other, but support the main agenda of a larger state; so too MRAs and Feminists BOTH support our society becoming more androgynous with men and women essentially doing the exact same thing.

I'll have to agree with you that the MRA's have picked up feminism's equality rhetoric primarily because feminism popularized the language. I can assure you that feminism has no desire for a truly androgynous society but just the opposite: One in which a certain class of women are a privileged at the expense of everyone else (especially men.) The goals are _very_ different: Feminists clearly don't want "androgyny" when it comes to equal custody rights or ending alimony or most child-support going to women, for instance.

Here's what I think MRA's are moving towards (but aren't going to admit it out loud. I'll blurt it out. (Sorry GW, she caught us! I don't get free beer at the next meeting!)

In a society with true "equal" rights under the law, or basically a gender neutral society, the "traditional" society will naturally emerge as many women realize they cannot "have it all" and create a economic and social vacuum. This is already largely happening as our own "USSR" and social safety nets are coming undone. I see a lot of women just openly more traditional and less feminist in thinking than 10 short years ago.

Have a great weekend!

NYMOM said...

Just to let you know Polish Knight this site is for LIKE-MINDED people to discuss ways to improve the laws, public policies, media coverage and public perception of mothers, especially single mothers. I stated that in the beginning of my blog...

I always allow for some discussion when someone first comes here, but I have no intention of spending all of my time arguing with those who disagree with every single thing I say, whenever I say it.

I invited you here originally to discuss the one issue of how you thought feminists were coming around to women being more circumspect regarding casual sex and now you answered that (they are just doing it to aggravate men in your opinion since men like having women continue in providing casual sex) so anyway it's time to move on.

I'm going to close this post to comments. I'll allow your last one to remain unanswered as I just don't have the time. I told you if you want stats on anything I say here, look through my archives...

I have data about shaken baby syndrome as well as abuse stats, but again that's NOT what this site is about to continue arguing with my stats against your stats as MOST PARENTS do NOT abuse their kids. Thus I am not going to continue that discussion which focuses on a small deviant subgroup.

I have other posts up if you'd like to discuss them.

Thanks.

Masculiste said...

How typical. Polish Knight blew you out of the water with sensible debate and discourse...you couldn't take it anymore and you banned him by closing down comments. What a laugh you can be at times.

NYMOM said...

No...he didn't 'blow me out of the water' as you claim.

He just started going down the usual route that you men use which is to start sprouting a whole chain of phony statistics that you all made up.

I even directed him to look it up on my blog as I have those statistics in stories here that I cite like about Shaken Baby Syndrome being mostly perpetuated by fathers but he couldn't be bothered...instead he started the usual thing which you do so well which is come up with some story about his g/f as a nurse who knows so many women who mistreat children.

As I told you and now him, this is NOT a site to come to discuss the odd freaks who beat up and abuse their kids as it's a small population that does this, most of them men, in spite of the statistical lies that you like to post.

Thus, since this is my blog, my rules. If you don't like it, get to steppin...

Just like you and all the rest of your associates do on your own sites.

If he or you wish to comment on other articles fine. But just remember what I said, my blog, my rules...This is NOT a site to bring your crap trying to compare one more horrible story after another and see who can best the other with more stories about men vs. women...

It's a site to discuss normal people...NORMAL...mostly mothers, especially single mothers and how best to lobby, brianstorm and think up way to assist them...

If you're not interested in that, then again, get to steppin....

PolishKnight said...

Hello NYMOM!

I got caught up in summer stuff and never saw your replies. I will say that I view us as probably agreeing in more ways than disagreeing. We both probably disagree with feminism, but I find your position strange because of your stance against MRA who consider themselves enemies of feminism as well.

Even in forums where people are "like minded", there usually is room for disagreement on a variety of issues if only to make the discussion interesting. Do you want a "like minded" forum of people going "uh huh! You go girl!"?

I never meant to imply that most parents abused their children. I was answering a claim you had made that most baby-shakers were men. I found that assertion mathematically interesting if only because most primary caregivers are women. This makes the statistic high improbable hence the reason I challenged it. These statistics are not "phony". I provided the cite which points to a government agency. Statistics usually don't fight each other if they are examined closely. I challenge, or maybe I should say, encourage you to please provide your source so we can evaluate them side-by-side.

You had written: It's a site to discuss normal people...NORMAL...mostly mothers, especially single mothers and how best to lobby, brianstorm and think up way to assist them...

I find that definition and topic rather strange. Here's why: If you want to talk of NORMAL "people" (especially single mothers), then why are they in such dire circumstances to need help? NORMAL men, especially breadwinning men, are almost invisible if only because they generally contribute to society rather than act as perpetual victims. Your stance sounds very similar to feminism which both demands chivalric protection of women but at the same time respect.

NYMOM said...

"Your stance sounds very similar to feminism which both demands chivalric protection of women but at the same time respect."

Chivalry is another example of how men have distorted history to give themselves an undeserved pat on the back. Chivalry was NEVER about how men treated women when they wished to get laid which is what it is NOW. It was about how you treated EACH OTHER in times of war, closer to the Geneva Convention then what you paint it as today...

Women demanding respect does NOT translate into requiring men be chivalrious...

I've written an article about it, go to the following link.

http://womenasmothers.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_womenasmothers_archive.html



"I never meant to imply that most parents abused their children. I was answering a claim you had made that most baby-shakers were men. I found that assertion mathematically interesting if only because most primary caregivers are women."

Yes, it is interesting as you said. See below:

Are Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities Increasing?

The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS has increased slightly over the last several years from 1.84 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 1.96 in 2001 and 1.98 in 2002. However, experts do not agree whether this represents an actual increase in child abuse and neglect fatalities, or whether it may be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. For example, statistics on approximately 20 percent of fatalities were from health departments and fatality review boards for 2002, compared to 11.4 percent for 2001, an indication of greater coordination of data collection among agencies.

A number of issues affecting the accuracy and consistency.

Who Are the Perpetrators?

No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2002, one or both parents were involved in 79 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. Of the other 21 percent of fatalities, 16 percent were the result of maltreatment by nonparent caretakers, and 5 percent were unknown or missing. These percentages are consistent with findings from previous years.

There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Information Courtesy of: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm)

Regarding Shaken Baby Sydrome:

*Shaken Baby Syndrome Statistics

One shaken baby in four dies.

Some studies estimate that 15% of children's deaths are due to battering or shaking, and an additional 15% are possible cases of shaking.

Of the 37 children that died in Florida in 1995-96 13 died from a combination of Shaken Baby Syndrome/ Head Trauma.

Of the thousands that survive death, serious injury usually occurs.

"SBS" victims range in age from a few days to a few months old; the average is six months.

More than 60% of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male.

Almost 80% of the perpetrators of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male

Information courtesy of: http://www.aboutshakenbaby.com/shaken_baby_statistics.htm

You could have looked this up yourself but claimed you were too busy YET you weren't too busy to post over and over bringing stats to make women look bad. Never too busy for that.

PolishKnight said...

More than 60% of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male.

Almost 80% of the perpetrators of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male

Information courtesy of: http://www.aboutshakenbaby.com/shaken_baby_statistics.htm


THANK YOU!

Please check out:

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccines_phillips_criminal2.htm
Until recently, most vaccine deaths have been labeled "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," especially if obvious symptoms were minimal. But with alarming frequency, one parent—usually the father—is accused of shaking the baby to death. Ironically, the parent may even "confess" to shaking the baby, having done so upon finding the baby not breathing or unconscious, and hoping to revive it. According to Scheibner, some defendants in SBS cases have won in court based on experts’ reports showing vaccines to be the cause of the injuries or death. But where the accused caregiver is uneducated, has a criminal record, or where a vaccine injury is accompanied by other physical injuries from another cause, the defendant’s chances are remote.

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/viol/chab.htm
The material discussed below is for 1996. 1998 US data are now available at: Child Abuse and Neglect National Statistics

It includes the following information on perpetrators:

Three-fifths (60.4%) of perpetrators were female. Female perpetrators were typically younger than their male counterparts, as reflected by the difference in their respective median ages, 31 and 34.
More than four-fifths (87.1%) of all victims were maltreated by one or both parents. The most common pattern of maltreatment was a child neglected by a female parent with no other perpetrators identified (44.7%).
Victims of physical and sexual abuse, compared to victims of neglect and medical neglect, were more likely to be maltreated by a male parent acting alone. In cases of sexual abuse, more than half of victims (55.9%) were abused by male parents, male relatives, or other males.

PolishKnight said...

In regards to your other points:

Chivalry is another example of how men have distorted history to give themselves an undeserved pat on the back. Chivalry was NEVER about how men treated women when they wished to get laid which is what it is NOW. It was about how you treated EACH OTHER in times of war, closer to the Geneva Convention then what you paint it as today...

I guess there must have been a war on the Titanic when men deservedly went down with the ship while women, rich or poor, got special access to the lifeboats. Or the notion that it's wrong for a man to hit a woman under any circumstances even if she's attacking him? Or does this apply only during wartime?

I'll agree with you that chivalry has been distorted as of late but so has the notion of civil rights.

Women demanding respect does NOT translate into requiring men be chivalrious...

Somehow, that very statemen sounds like a perfect example of chivalry. Can you imagine a man screeching that he "demands" respect? I suppose that's the tone of the MRA's and that may be why you understandably find them repulsive. But then again, according to popular sentiment, the traditional brutish ways that men have earned or commanded respect aren't acceptable either much of the time.

Finally, in answer to this point:
You could have looked this up yourself but claimed you were too busy YET you weren't too busy to post over and over bringing stats to make women look bad. Never too busy for that.

I never said I was too busy. You claim I'm a liar but I merely asked for the cite because I think it's better that someone show their sources or reasoning rather than me having to engage in mind reading. Really. By the same token, I don't expect you to just take anything I say on faith either and run on a paper chase to dispute me.

My goal isn't to make women "look bad" but to merely addresss the opposite notion that men don't deserve equal credit or custody rights. Courts should grant custody for the best interests of the child (especially when they say that) rather than as a backdoor justification for alimony.

If we might put away our sabers for a moment: My wife and I have a relationship that's founded upon us just wanting happy lives. Period. We aren't interested in conflict. Knock on wood, if anything were to happen and she wanted custody of the kids, I would be happy to help out financially and I wouldn't care if I couldn't see them everyday provided they knew I loved them and called from time to time and sent a father's day card. We plan to send the kids away to boarding school anyway.

Peace and good will towards you.