> I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is:

This thing called Google returns results from the web, and any crackpot can have a page indexed. You are not required to, but the onus of citing is on you when you are making a claim which isn't known to the demographic in question.

> That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology.

>> The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving

What relevance you non-parental care giving has to do with a father raising a child?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Recent_develo...

> Attachment theory describes the dynamics of long-term relationships between humans. Its most important tenet is that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for social and emotional development to occur normally.

Why are you quoting "maternal deprivation" when it is superseded by "attachment theory"? Attachment theory talks about "at least one parent" and your claims are mother is more important.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Connection_to_int...

>> (Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point)

You are conveniently ignoring the studies which didn't find causation or correlation.

> Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).

>> It still takes a woman to give birth to a child. And while a "man is capable of raising a child in a normal way", that doesn't say much. Also an orphanage is capable of raising a child -- or "the streets", as it happens in some third world countries. Maybe even wolves, if we believe this Mowgli story. But, some hundred thousands years of evolution say the child optimally needs two parents, female and male.

Now you are being simple, plain ridiculous. Did I question it takes a woman to give birth? What purpose that bullshit about woman required to give birth serve?

And the bit about orphanage and streets? A father raising a child is analogous, right?

And thousand years of evolution says a child optimally need two parents? Now you are simply pulling things out of your ass. Do you even know what evolution means?

> That said, some people consider a child a vanity accessory one can just buy for himself --or had it delivered. From my not-so-PC standpoint, I'd call those people selfish consumers that deserve to be mocked, but sadly aren't as much as they used to be:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

More hyperbole. I didn't click the link. I didn't put forward the argument about child being an accessory, and have no interests in knowing about your solid refutations to the points I, or no one else here made or implied.

Your disclaimer about not being PC compliant is getting irritating. That not being PC compliant disclaimer comes into play only after you are correct(and no, quoting correlation as absolutes isn't being correct). If you aren't correct, being PC or not means shit.