Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> Missed my point. Either he decides he's going to be a father (at which 
> time terms like "sperm child" become irrelevant, and make a distinction 
> that can only hurt the non-sperm children), or he's not (at which time, 
> "sperm child" is only relevant for support demands).
> 
> KWW

I guess you're right... if he's into making distinctions about which
children are/aren't his biologically, probably not a good frame of mind
to be in.  I can imagine the wife enjoys his uncertainty as well.

-Jim