Absolutely. As long as the baby is given adequate food and care, why does it matter who provides it?
Of course it was a different situation, but in my uncle’s case, he was defecting to the west from Communism, so he couldn’t see his kids (who stayed behind in the old country) until his case was resolved, which took a few years. Meanwhile the kids were under the care of their grandmother. Eventually the politics were sorted out and the kids could join their father in the U.S. It was a difficult time but in the long run much, much better for the kids, who are now adults and very productive U.S. citizens.
I guess it is a case of just different opinions. If you have to be away from your kid, that’s fine, but why have kids if you’re going to opt to be away from them for so long?
I don’t think we’re going to convince each other. I guess we can disagree on this but agree that if your pantless baby is on a restaurant table in a burning SUV, you should…um, shoot to kill? 
Or volunteered for military service during wartime? Not that the two situations are similar, but there are many different ways to voluntarily leave behind a child that wouldn’t be looked at the same.
It’s OK; in a few years Stowe (now doddering a bit and perhaps more mindful of what’s *truly *important in life) will attempt to bond with his son, who will respond “what I’d really like, Dad, is to borrow the yacht keys— see you later can I have them please?” after which the elder Stowe will drop dead from an overdose of maudlin sentimentality.
VT, damn you to hell.
". . . Little boy blue and the man in the moon . . . " (Because the only way to stop suffering is to pass the infection.)