Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>> John W. wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Murgi" <srindler@da2.so-net.ne.jp> wrote in message 
>>>> news:<add80b4ec86cbee6124feed797c03804@news.secureusenet.com>...
>>>>
>>>>> "John W." <worthj1970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:409599B5.1070303@yahoo.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know a good place to buy shoes online for kids? Got a special
>>>>>> request from the sperm child...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's a "sperm child"? Still frozen in liquid nitrogen without 
>>>>> feet to need
>>>>> shoes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a child of my sperm, as opposed to one of someone else's sperm.
>>>> And I'm really just assuming that fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> That you would write that in a public forum sends little chills up my 
>>> spine.
>>>
>>
>> Well, if he hasn't done a dna test... there's no way to
>> be sure, is there?  I've read that upwards of 30% of children born
>> in two-parent households are not the product of the husband.
> 
> 
>>
> You are twisting the percentages a bit. Blood-typing anomalies show that 
> about 10% of children don't belong to the putative father. That means 
> that about 19% of two-child families have a cuckoo, and 27% of 
> three-child families have one. Add in the cases where the father is 
> aware of the situation, and you can easily hit 30% of households for the 
> two and three kid cases. 30% of households is a lot different then 30% 
> of the kids.
> 
> My point was that a father either thinks of his kid as his, or not. 
> Allowing yourself to live in a gray zone risks causing a lot of damage 
> to the kid.


Well, it would (be a problem) if you think being a "father" can only be with your
biological children.  If John can be a "father" to any child in his
family, whether or not he knows he/she to be his own "sperm child", what's
the problem?  I'm guessing you wouldn't be a very good candidate for
adopting kids, eh?

-Jim