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.
KWW