Are You Raising Another Man's Child?

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 01:32 PM

According to This Article, as many as 1 out of every 25 men (3.70% to 3.85%)could be raising another man's child, and they don't even know it!

While it is an almost absolute certainty (100%) that any woman who gives birth is the real mother of that child, there is a lesser certainty (~96%) that her husband is the real father!

Fathers, count yourself and 24 other fathers. If each of them resembles their kids, then the poor fool could be you!

I hope that genetic screening of newborns becomes mandated by law, so that at the very least, a coincidental by-product would be the establishment of paternity beyond any doubt.

Look at it this way; if you knew that there was a 4% chance that you could be the victim of identity theft, wouldn't you want to know whether or not you've been defrauded, and if so, by whom?

Lisa Simpson · 27th April 2007, 01:38 PM

I don't really want mandatory genetic testing. I can see it being used against people later in life, if say, they find on a newborn baby girl the genes for breast cancer.

My husband, BTW, has many reassurances that our three sons are his. He and I both have blue eyes and O- blood. All three of our sons have blue eyes and O- blood. Plus, the younger two also have the same genetic disorder my husband has. Pretty good proof there.

LostAngeles · 27th April 2007, 01:50 PM

What about Chimeras?

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 01:50 PM

Lisa, may every Mother's Day be a special day for you, and every Father's Day for your husband!

grayman · 27th April 2007, 01:55 PM

I suppose this is as good a place as any for...:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

What about Chimeras?

From the article: "This sort of mosaicism is exceedingly rare in the medical annals, though not completely unheard of. To date approximately thirty cases have been found world-wide."

Since This Site declares that the world's population is over 6.7 Trillion, and assuming that all 30 known cases of Chimerism are alive today, this means that these chimerae make up less than 0.000,000,45% of the world's population, as opposed to the ~4% of men that could unknowingly be raising other men's children.

Obviously, any question of maternity should be investigated further for purely medical reasons. But if there is no genetic match between a child and its alleged father, then it is much more likely that another man got in there first.

Stellafane · 27th April 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

According to This Article, as many as 1 out of every 25 men (3.70% to 3.85%)could be raising another man's child, and they don't even know it!

While it is an almost absolute certainty (100%) that any woman who gives birth is the real mother of that child, there is a lesser certainty (~96%) that her husband is the real father!

Fathers, count yourself and 24 other fathers. If each of them resembles their kids, then the poor fool could be you!

I hope that genetic screening of newborns becomes mandated by law, so that at the very least, a coincidental by-product would be the establishment of paternity beyond any doubt.

Look at it this way; if you knew that there was a 4% chance that you could be the victim of identity theft, wouldn't you want to know whether or not you've been defrauded, and if so, by whom?

To answer your question: yes, I'm raising another man's child. My daughter is adopted.

But of course you're talking about unknowingly raising another man's child. Well, I'm pretty sure my son is biologically mine. But if by some circumstance I learned he wasn't, it wouldn't change how I felt about him one scintilla -- he's my son, and will be forever. How he came into my life is no longer relevant, since the relationship we've established over the years is the important thing now. (How I felt about my wife, on the other hand, would certainly be subject to change.)

BTW, what's with the tags accociated with this thread ("affair, bastard, cheat, child, cuckold, deceit, deception, fraud, illegitimate, infidelity, lie, paternity, skeptic, unfaithful")? Are they collectively trying to make a statement of some sort?

EeneyMinnieMoe · 27th April 2007, 02:06 PM

Hilarious thread, Fnord. Reminds me of a quote from The Odyssey :

[When Athena comes to Odysseus' house and sks his son if he's Odysseus' son]

"Friend, let me put it in the plainest way.
My mother says I am his son; I know not
surely.

Who has known his own engendering?

Of course, your husband, has the biggest assurance: you never cheated on him! ...right?

Not to scare you but according to "The Handy Science Answer Book", if a mother has type O blood and the child has type O, the father can be O but also A or B. But not AB.

I remember how my own father flipped out once when I donated blood and happened to mention that I was A-.

For some reason, he thought I had O-, like him. But I took after my mother, who's A plus. Amusingly enough, if the mother is A and the child is A, the father can be any group.

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Stellafane

To BTW, what's with the tags accociated with this thread ? Are they collectively trying to make a statement of some sort?

Tags is tags. Which ones do you object to, and what tags do you propose?

Statement? No. I'm trying to open a discussion.

Lisa Simpson · 27th April 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

Not to scare you but according to "The Handy Science Answer Book", if a mother has type O blood and the child has type O, the father can be O but also A or B. But not AB.

I assume you are referring to me. We both have Type O blood. Of course it's possible for someone with type A blood to have a child with type O blood. But it's considerably harder for two people with type O blood to have a child with anything but type O blood.

IXP · 27th April 2007, 02:30 PM

I know I am not raising someone else's child since I am not and never have raised any (human) child.

Is someone else raising one of my children? I cannot be certain.

IXP

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 02:36 PM

If I understand correctly, in blood typing, there are actually two types involved. I mean...

"O" is actually "OO"
"A" can be either "AA" or "AO" or "OA"
"B" can be either "BB" or "BO" or "OB"
"AB" can only be "AB"

Each parent contributes one element. Thus, if one parent is "OO" and the other is "AA" then their children can be "AO" or "OA." Oddly enough, these are considered "A." "B" has corresponding combinations and interpretations. So, if one parent has "A" and the other has "B" and one of the kids has "O" it is not cause for alarm...

"AO" + "BO" = {"AB","AO","OB","OO"} ... 25% chance for each of the types "A", "B", "AB", and "O". Try explaining THAT to a suspicious husband!

Lisa Simpson · 27th April 2007, 02:40 PM

You are correct. The reason you have type A blood even if you are genetically AO is that O has no antigens at all. So if you are genetically AO, you have type A antigens. If you have type O blood (OO genetically) you have no antigens at all, which is why Type O is the universal donor and the Red Cross loves me and my husband.

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

.... If you have type O blood (OO genetically) you have no antigens at all, which is why Type O is the universal donor and the Red Cross loves me and my husband.

I have type AB Negative -- the "Universal Receiver." The Red Cross seems to only want my platelets and blood fractions. Some hospitals used to pay me $25 a pint to undergo plasmapheresis -- it helped get me through school on more than Top Ramen and Skippy.

Back on topic ...

I wonder how the women who knowingly conceal the true paternity of their children from their husbands rationalize their actions. I also wonder how some husbands could possibly remain married to such a woman once the secret is revealed.

Then again, I really wonder if any article posted on MSNBC can be believed at face value.

Comments?

grayman · 27th April 2007, 03:18 PM

Don't forget to donate if you can.

Sorry for the derail Fnord.

Terry · 27th April 2007, 03:26 PM

I'm paying for another man's child's wedding, does that count? The Dance with Father at the reception is apparently going to be a complex production with the three of us cutting in on each other or something...

Moochie · 27th April 2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

According to This Article, as many as 1 out of every 25 men (3.70% to 3.85%)could be raising another man's child, and they don't even know it!

While it is an almost absolute certainty (100%) that any woman who gives birth is the real mother of that child, there is a lesser certainty (~96%) that her husband is the real father!

Fathers, count yourself and 24 other fathers. If each of them resembles their kids, then the poor fool could be you!

I hope that genetic screening of newborns becomes mandated by law, so that at the very least, a coincidental by-product would be the establishment of paternity beyond any doubt.

Look at it this way; if you knew that there was a 4% chance that you could be the victim of identity theft, wouldn't you want to know whether or not you've been defrauded, and if so, by whom?

I'm 100% certain I'm not raising another man's child.

However, I'm not so sure about the cat.

M.

Professor Yaffle · 27th April 2007, 03:27 PM

Fnord, AB positive is the universal recipient, not AB negative. You can have any blood as long as it is rhesus negative. The universal recipient could have any blood at all. I ,and my mam and dad and all my siblings, are O neg, so we are universal donors. Unfortunately I can't give blood because when I do so I become very anaemic.

Was there some research recently that showed that babies are more likely to take after their fathers in looks, as evolutions way of helping reassure the father of his paternity and make it less likely he would be duped into raising someone elses kid?

ShowMe · 27th April 2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

I wonder how the women who knowingly conceal the true paternity of their children from their husbands rationalize their actions. I also wonder how some husbands could possibly remain married to such a woman once the secret is revealed.

At the risk of sounding like an urban legend, I have read of cases where the father discovered the secret & divorced the woman. But was ordered to pay child support since he had "accepted the child as his" for a number of years, even when it was discovered who the real father was.

If I get a chance I'll google it later.

JeffJ · 27th April 2007, 03:29 PM

This topic reminds me of a question I have:
There are these conjoined twin girls Abbey and Brittany (seen here http://www.hemmy.net/2007/01/07/conj...itanny-hensel/ ) who I've seen before and somewhere on the net is a diagram of their internal organs. Basically from the abdomen down they're just one person: I forget the exact anatomy but I know they have two legs, one colon/anus, one set of genitals and reproductive organs.
Although they basically look like a two headed person each girl controls the leg on her side of the body.

My question is if they get pregnant (and I believe they can) then who will the mother be? If they both share the same reproductive organs and eggs then would they not both be considered the mother of any potential baby they have? And if so would that be the only documented time that a pair of conjoined twins who shared such close anatomy gave birth and were both (potentially) the mother?

It's very confusing to me.

Moochie · 27th April 2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by grayman

I suppose this is as good a place as any for...:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That is truly awful.

Time for another beer...

M.

Lisa Simpson · 27th April 2007, 03:38 PM

One of the students at the school where I work (said student being approximately 10 years old) asked me if Lois Lane would be able to have Superman's baby or if it would kick through her stomach. When I told this to my husband he wondered if Lois would even be able to get pregnant, as Superman's sperm would be damn fast swimmers. They might swim right past the egg. More importantly, would the ejaculate also be faster than a speeding bullet and thus a possibly fatal wound for Lois?

Moochie · 27th April 2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

One of the students at the school where I work (said student being approximately 10 years old) asked me if Lois Lane would be able to have Superman's baby or if it would kick through her stomach. When I told this to my husband he wondered if Lois would even be able to get pregnant, as Superman's sperm would be damn fast swimmers. They might swim right past the egg. More importantly, would the ejaculate also be faster than a speeding bullet and thus a possibly fatal wound for Lois?

Clearly, these are questions that should be addressed in Superman MM.

M.

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 03:44 PM

"Faster than a speeding bullet" has other conotations, Lisa. Before Lois could say "Is that all there is to it?", that would be all there is to it!

a_unique_person · 27th April 2007, 03:46 PM

It takes two to tango.

Terry · 27th April 2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

One of the students at the school where I work (said student being approximately 10 years old) asked me if Lois Lane would be able to have Superman's baby or if it would kick through her stomach. When I told this to my husband he wondered if Lois would even be able to get pregnant, as Superman's sperm would be damn fast swimmers. They might swim right past the egg. More importantly, would the ejaculate also be faster than a speeding bullet and thus a possibly fatal wound for Lois?

more info...

EeneyMinnieMoe · 27th April 2007, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

You are correct. The reason you have type A blood even if you are genetically AO is that O has no antigens at all. So if you are genetically AO, you have type A antigens. If you have type O blood (OO genetically) you have no antigens at all, which is why Type O is the universal donor and the Red Cross loves me and my husband.

Dad has OO...Mom has A plus...I'm AO negative...I am my father's child! Whew, gotta try to explain all of that to Dad, to settle that misunderstanding once and for all!

I'm jealous of your blood Lisa

. I didn't understand about blood types when I started donating blood and I hoped to have O blood like my father but alas.

Ah well, I'm anyway preferable to a person with A blood than an O is. And I can donate to ABs, too. If Fnord ever needs my blood, I'd be more than happy to.

Speaking of which, yes, please donate! As often as you can. It's one of the few thing s anyone can do that makes a huge difference.

Moochie · 27th April 2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

Speaking of which, yes, please donate! As often as you can. It's one of the few thing s anyone can do that makes a huge difference.

That is pure BS.

M.

EeneyMinnieMoe · 27th April 2007, 04:18 PM

There's nothing BS about donating blood to trauma patients, cancer patients, prematurely born children and others.

sivazh · 27th April 2007, 04:22 PM

As they say, "mommy's baby, daddy's maybe." DNA tests, boys, DNA tests.

Moochie · 27th April 2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

There's nothing BS about donating blood to trauma patients, cancer patients, prematurely born children and others.

The "trauma patient" may be a serial killer.

The cancer patient may have murdered your mother.

The prem baby may turn out to be GW Bush

Others may be Osama, etc.

As I said, pure BS.

M.

Lisa Simpson · 27th April 2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

There's nothing BS about donating blood to trauma patients, cancer patients, prematurely born children and others.

You did say "anyone can do" and that's certainly not true. Some people can't for medical reasons, some people can't because the Red Cross is stupid and homophobic. I can't donate blood because I'm anemic to begin with. I can't afford to lose any.

EeneyMinnieMoe · 27th April 2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Moochie

The "trauma patient" may be a serial killer.

The cancer patient may have murdered your mother.

The prem baby may turn out to be GW Bush

Others may be Osama, etc.

As I said, pure BS.

M.

Moochie, you would not be saying that if it was your ass that had cancer. Or if your ass got shot, had anemia or was having a transplant.

EeneyMinnieMoe · 27th April 2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

You did say "anyone can do" and that's certainly not true. Some people can't for medical reasons, some people can't because the Red Cross is stupid and homophobic. I can't donate blood because I'm anemic to begin with. I can't afford to lose any.

Right. Almost anyone can do.

I'm with you on the stupidity and the homophobia. From the Red Cross and FDA alike. My best friend is a gay man and it's shameful he can't donate without lying. They test the blood for AIDS, syphillis and the like anyway so why reject an entire community of people based on their orientation?

ponderingturtle · 27th April 2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

From the article: "This sort of mosaicism is exceedingly rare in the medical annals, though not completely unheard of. To date approximately thirty cases have been found world-wide."

Since This Site declares that the world's population is over 6.7 Trillion, and assuming that all 30 known cases of Chimerism are alive today, this means that these chimerae make up less than 0.000,000,45% of the world's population, as opposed to the ~4% of men that could unknowingly be raising other men's children.

Obviously, any question of maternity should be investigated further for purely medical reasons. But if there is no genetic match between a child and its alleged father, then it is much more likely that another man got in there first.

As it is difficult to diagnose even when it is highly suspected, the real rates are subject only to conjecture.

Metullus · 27th April 2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by ShowMe

At the risk of sounding like an urban legend, I have read of cases where the father discovered the secret & divorced the woman. But was ordered to pay child support since he had "accepted the child as his" for a number of years, even when it was discovered who the real father was.

If I get a chance I'll google it later.

I guess you missed this thread. Not an urban legend at all. In fact it is the law in many states (including California).

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ShowMe

At the risk of sounding like an urban legend, I have read of cases where the father discovered the secret & divorced the woman. But was ordered to pay child support since he had "accepted the child as his" for a number of years, even when it was discovered who the real father was.

If I get a chance I'll google it later.

A similar thing actually happened to my brother. At 17, he felt so guilty about the girl's tears, and so fearful of her dad's anger (and our dad's, too), that he "admitted" to being the father before the kid was even born! (Stupidstupidstupid!)

When the blood tests came back "inconclusive" it was too late; he had already joined the Army and agreed to wage garnishment to pay child support. Civil and military courts would not even consider the case based on his previous "admission."

By the time that DNA tests became available, the child was already in her 20's. Even though the DNA tests proved that my brother was NOT the father, no civil judge in that jurisdiction would hear the case, again citing the previous "admission" and/or some obscure statute of limitations.

My brother gave up a college basketball scholarship to join the Army so that some [rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8] bimbo could collect his hard-earned pay and live with a succession of men and raise her daughter in a trashy environment.

The capper: At my Dad's funeral, the mother, her dad, and her daughter actually confronted me with the accusation that I could be the father! The facts that if the DNA did not match my brother, it likely would not match me; AND that they could collect no support payments from me regardless of the outcome of a DNA test was lost on these [rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8] cretins.

And no, I never had sex with that woman, either.

Fnord · 27th April 2007, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

... They test the blood for AIDS, syphillis and the like anyway so why reject an entire community of people based on their orientation?

It's more economical to turn away an entire population of potential donors on the grounds of "Risk To Public Safety" than it is to perform effective tests on every unit of donated blood.

The way it was explained to me by a physician employed by the ARC is that because the amount of live HIV in a pint of blood is too small to detect economically, it just "makes more sense" to reject the entire high-risk population. A sample would have to be taken, and the rest of the blood stored for a long time so that the sample could be incubated in vivo long enough for the HIV antibodies to show. By that time, the whole blood would have degraded far enough to be useless anyway.

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'VE BEEN MIS-INFORMED (It's possible, but not likely).

It has less to do with potential donors specifically being gay than it does with potential donors being high-risk for HIV. Note that intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, diabetics and similar people are considered high-risk donors, as well. It has nothing to do with "Diabetiphobia" for example.

I was denied donation for a year after I came back from overseas deployment, not because I was a Navy service member, but because I was high-risk for malaria -- even though I had taken the anti-malarial medicines while deployed! It wasn't "Sailorphobia," it was just good, common sense.

qayak · 27th April 2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

Speaking of which, yes, please donate! As often as you can. It's one of the few thing s anyone can do that makes a huge difference.

Not anyone. I can't donate and it has nothing to do with HIV.

grayman · 27th April 2007, 06:23 PM

I can still donate, so I'll lift a pint on behalf of those of you denied.

I will still bring more blood if no questions are asked. Just saying...

27th April 2007, 01:32 PM	#1
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Are You Raising Another Man's Child? According to This Article, as many as 1 out of every 25 men (3.70% to 3.85%)could be raising another man's child, and they don't even know it! While it is an almost absolute certainty (100%) that any woman who gives birth is the real mother of that child, there is a lesser certainty (~96%) that her husband is the real father! Fathers, count yourself and 24 other fathers. If each of them resembles their kids, then the poor fool could be you! I hope that genetic screening of newborns becomes mandated by law, so that at the very least, a coincidental by-product would be the establishment of paternity beyond any doubt. Look at it this way; if you knew that there was a 4% chance that you could be the victim of identity theft, wouldn't you want to know whether or not you've been defrauded, and if so, by whom?
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

27th April 2007, 01:38 PM	#2
Lisa Simpson THE Lisa Simpson Administrator Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 15,987	I don't really want mandatory genetic testing. I can see it being used against people later in life, if say, they find on a newborn baby girl the genes for breast cancer. My husband, BTW, has many reassurances that our three sons are his. He and I both have blue eyes and O- blood. All three of our sons have blue eyes and O- blood. Plus, the younger two also have the same genetic disorder my husband has. Pretty good proof there.
	__________________ In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue. - Wallace Sayre Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

27th April 2007, 01:50 PM	#3
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,113	What about Chimeras?
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

27th April 2007, 01:50 PM	#4
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Lisa, may every Mother's Day be a special day for you, and every Father's Day for your husband!
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

27th April 2007, 02:01 PM	#6
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Originally Posted by LostAngeles What about Chimeras? From the article: "*This sort of mosaicism is exceedingly rare* in the medical annals, though not completely unheard of. To date approximately thirty cases have been found world-wide.**" Since This Site declares that the world's population is over 6.7 Trillion, and assuming that all 30 known cases of Chimerism are alive today, this means that these chimerae make up less than 0.000,000,45% of the world's population, as opposed to the ~4% of men that could unknowingly be raising other men's children. Obviously, any question of maternity should be investigated further for purely medical reasons. But if there is no genetic match between a child and its alleged father, then it is much more likely that another man got in there first.
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

27th April 2007, 02:04 PM	#7
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 3,780	Originally Posted by Fnord According to This Article, as many as 1 out of every 25 men (3.70% to 3.85%)could be raising another man's child, and they don't even know it! While it is an almost absolute certainty (100%) that any woman who gives birth is the real mother of that child, there is a lesser certainty (~96%) that her husband is the real father! Fathers, count yourself and 24 other fathers. If each of them resembles their kids, then the poor fool could be you! I hope that genetic screening of newborns becomes mandated by law, so that at the very least, a coincidental by-product would be the establishment of paternity beyond any doubt. Look at it this way; if you knew that there was a 4% chance that you could be the victim of identity theft, wouldn't you want to know whether or not you've been defrauded, and if so, by whom? To answer your question: yes, I'm raising another man's child. My daughter is adopted. But of course you're talking about unknowingly raising another man's child. Well, I'm pretty sure my son is biologically mine. But if by some circumstance I learned he wasn't, it wouldn't change how I felt about him one scintilla -- he's my son, and will be forever. How he came into my life is no longer relevant, since the relationship we've established over the years is the important thing now. (How I felt about my wife, on the other hand, would certainly be subject to change.) BTW, what's with the tags accociated with this thread ("affair, bastard, cheat, child, cuckold, deceit, deception, fraud, illegitimate, infidelity, lie, paternity, skeptic, unfaithful")? Are they collectively trying to make a statement of some sort?
	__________________ Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

27th April 2007, 02:06 PM	#8
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,545	Hilarious thread, Fnord. Reminds me of a quote from The Odyssey : [When Athena comes to Odysseus' house and sks his son if he's Odysseus' son] "Friend, let me put it in the plainest way. My mother says I am his son; I know not surely. Who has known his own engendering? Of course, your husband, has the biggest assurance: you never cheated on him! ...right? Not to scare you but according to "The Handy Science Answer Book", if a mother has type O blood and the child has type O, the father can be O but also A or B. But not AB. I remember how my own father flipped out once when I donated blood and happened to mention that I was A-. For some reason, he thought I had O-, like him. But I took after my mother, who's A plus. Amusingly enough, if the mother is A and the child is A, the father can be any group.

27th April 2007, 02:06 PM	#9
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Originally Posted by Stellafane To BTW, what's with the tags accociated with this thread ? Are they collectively trying to make a statement of some sort? Tags is tags. Which ones do you object to, and what tags do you propose? Statement? No. I'm trying to open a discussion.
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

27th April 2007, 02:16 PM	#10
Lisa Simpson THE Lisa Simpson Administrator Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 15,987	Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe Not to scare you but according to "The Handy Science Answer Book", if a mother has type O blood and the child has type O, the father can be O but also A or B. But not AB. I assume you are referring to me. We both have Type O blood. Of course it's possible for someone with type A blood to have a child with type O blood. But it's considerably harder for two people with type O blood to have a child with anything but type O blood.
	__________________ In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue. - Wallace Sayre Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

27th April 2007, 02:30 PM	#11
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 743	I know I am not raising someone else's child since I am not and never have raised any (human) child. Is someone else raising one of my children? I cannot be certain. IXP
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 743	__________________ "When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

27th April 2007, 02:36 PM	#12
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	If I understand correctly, in blood typing, there are actually two types involved. I mean... "O" is actually "OO" "A" can be either "AA" or "AO" or "OA" "B" can be either "BB" or "BO" or "OB" "AB" can only be "AB" Each parent contributes one element. Thus, if one parent is "OO" and the other is "AA" then their children can be "AO" or "OA." Oddly enough, these are considered "A." "B" has corresponding combinations and interpretations. So, if one parent has "A" and the other has "B" and one of the kids has "O" it is not cause for alarm... "AO" + "BO" = {"AB","AO","OB","OO"} ... 25% chance for each of the types "A", "B", "AB", and "O". Try explaining THAT to a suspicious husband!
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

27th April 2007, 02:40 PM	#13
Lisa Simpson THE Lisa Simpson Administrator Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 15,987	You are correct. The reason you have type A blood even if you are genetically AO is that O has no antigens at all. So if you are genetically AO, you have type A antigens. If you have type O blood (OO genetically) you have no antigens at all, which is why Type O is the universal donor and the Red Cross loves me and my husband.
	__________________ In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue. - Wallace Sayre Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

27th April 2007, 02:53 PM	#14
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson .... If you have type O blood (OO genetically) you have no antigens at all, which is why Type O is the universal donor and the Red Cross loves me and my husband. I have type AB Negative -- the "Universal Receiver." The Red Cross seems to only want my platelets and blood fractions. Some hospitals used to pay me $25 a pint to undergo plasmapheresis -- it helped get me through school on more than Top Ramen and Skippy. Back on topic ... I wonder how the women who knowingly conceal the true paternity of their children from their husbands rationalize their actions. I also wonder how some husbands could possibly remain married to such a woman once the secret is revealed. Then again, I really wonder if any article posted on MSNBC can be believed at face value. Comments?
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957. Last edited by Fnord; 27th April 2007 at 03:00 PM.

27th April 2007, 03:18 PM	#15
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 5,884	Don't forget to donate if you can. Sorry for the derail Fnord.
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge

27th April 2007, 03:26 PM	#16
Terry Zeitgeist-impaired Technical Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: logged in to the server Posts: 6,426	I'm paying for another man's child's wedding, does that count? The Dance with Father at the reception is apparently going to be a complex production with the three of us cutting in on each other or something...

27th April 2007, 03:27 PM	#17
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by Fnord According to This Article, as many as 1 out of every 25 men (3.70% to 3.85%)could be raising another man's child, and they don't even know it! While it is an almost absolute certainty (100%) that any woman who gives birth is the real mother of that child, there is a lesser certainty (~96%) that her husband is the real father! Fathers, count yourself and 24 other fathers. If each of them resembles their kids, then the poor fool could be you! I hope that genetic screening of newborns becomes mandated by law, so that at the very least, a coincidental by-product would be the establishment of paternity beyond any doubt. Look at it this way; if you knew that there was a 4% chance that you could be the victim of identity theft, wouldn't you want to know whether or not you've been defrauded, and if so, by whom? I'm 100% certain I'm not raising another man's child. However, I'm not so sure about the cat. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	__________________

27th April 2007, 03:27 PM	#18
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 8,701	Fnord, AB positive is the universal recipient, not AB negative. You can have any blood as long as it is rhesus negative. The universal recipient could have any blood at all. I ,and my mam and dad and all my siblings, are O neg, so we are universal donors. Unfortunately I can't give blood because when I do so I become very anaemic. Was there some research recently that showed that babies are more likely to take after their fathers in looks, as evolutions way of helping reassure the father of his paternity and make it less likely he would be duped into raising someone elses kid?
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

27th April 2007, 03:28 PM	#19
ShowMe Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,157	Originally Posted by Fnord I wonder how the women who knowingly conceal the true paternity of their children from their husbands rationalize their actions. I also wonder how some husbands could possibly remain married to such a woman once the secret is revealed. At the risk of sounding like an urban legend, I have read of cases where the father discovered the secret & divorced the woman. But was ordered to pay child support since he had "accepted the child as his" for a number of years, even when it was discovered who the real father was. If I get a chance I'll google it later.
ShowMe Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,157	__________________ "One wonders how one augur may pass another in the street without laughing." -Marcus Porcius Cato, 2nd Century B.C. referring to the fortune tellers of his time "I could tell you that it is because I don't want The Language Award to appear too cliqueish. But I won't. 'Cause you're not one of the cool people." - Tricky

27th April 2007, 03:29 PM	#20
JeffJ Scholar Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 103	This topic reminds me of a question I have: There are these conjoined twin girls Abbey and Brittany (seen here http://www.hemmy.net/2007/01/07/conj...itanny-hensel/ ) who I've seen before and somewhere on the net is a diagram of their internal organs. Basically from the abdomen down they're just one person: I forget the exact anatomy but I know they have two legs, one colon/anus, one set of genitals and reproductive organs. Although they basically look like a two headed person each girl controls the leg on her side of the body. My question is if they get pregnant (and I believe they can) then who will the mother be? If they both share the same reproductive organs and eggs then would they not both be considered the mother of any potential baby they have? And if so would that be the only documented time that a pair of conjoined twins who shared such close anatomy gave birth and were both (potentially) the mother? It's very confusing to me.
JeffJ Scholar Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 103

27th April 2007, 03:38 PM	#22
Lisa Simpson THE Lisa Simpson Administrator Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 15,987	One of the students at the school where I work (said student being approximately 10 years old) asked me if Lois Lane would be able to have Superman's baby or if it would kick through her stomach. When I told this to my husband he wondered if Lois would even be able to get pregnant, as Superman's sperm would be damn fast swimmers. They might swim right past the egg. More importantly, would the ejaculate also be faster than a speeding bullet and thus a possibly fatal wound for Lois?
	__________________ In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue. - Wallace Sayre Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

27th April 2007, 03:43 PM	#23
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson One of the students at the school where I work (said student being approximately 10 years old) asked me if Lois Lane would be able to have Superman's baby or if it would kick through her stomach. When I told this to my husband he wondered if Lois would even be able to get pregnant, as Superman's sperm would be damn fast swimmers. They might swim right past the egg. More importantly, would the ejaculate also be faster than a speeding bullet and thus a possibly fatal wound for Lois? Clearly, these are questions that should be addressed in Superman MM. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	__________________

27th April 2007, 03:44 PM	#24
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	"Faster than a speeding bullet" has other conotations, Lisa. Before Lois could say "Is that all there is to it?", that would be all there is to it!
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

27th April 2007, 03:46 PM	#25
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sitting in the ghostly glow of an LCD screen Posts: 28,488	It takes two to tango.
	__________________ "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." SH Roberts " Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." Monbiot "I am not the fine man you take me for"

27th April 2007, 03:51 PM	#26
Terry Zeitgeist-impaired Technical Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: logged in to the server Posts: 6,426	Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson One of the students at the school where I work (said student being approximately 10 years old) asked me if Lois Lane would be able to have Superman's baby or if it would kick through her stomach. When I told this to my husband he wondered if Lois would even be able to get pregnant, as Superman's sperm would be damn fast swimmers. They might swim right past the egg. More importantly, would the ejaculate also be faster than a speeding bullet and thus a possibly fatal wound for Lois? more info...

27th April 2007, 03:58 PM	#27
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,545	Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson You are correct. The reason you have type A blood even if you are genetically AO is that O has no antigens at all. So if you are genetically AO, you have type A antigens. If you have type O blood (OO genetically) you have no antigens at all, which is why Type O is the universal donor and the Red Cross loves me and my husband. Dad has OO...Mom has A plus...I'm AO negative...I am my father's child! Whew, gotta try to explain all of that to Dad, to settle that misunderstanding once and for all! I'm jealous of your blood Lisa . I didn't understand about blood types when I started donating blood and I hoped to have O blood like my father but alas. Ah well, I'm anyway preferable to a person with A blood than an O is. And I can donate to ABs, too. If Fnord ever needs my blood, I'd be more than happy to. Speaking of which, yes, please donate! As often as you can. It's one of the few thing s anyone can do that makes a huge difference.
	Last edited by EeneyMinnieMoe; 27th April 2007 at 04:02 PM. Reason: edit

27th April 2007, 04:08 PM	#28
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe Speaking of which, yes, please donate! As often as you can. It's one of the few thing s anyone can do that makes a huge difference. That is pure BS. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	__________________

27th April 2007, 04:18 PM	#29
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,545	There's nothing BS about donating blood to trauma patients, cancer patients, prematurely born children and others.

27th April 2007, 04:22 PM	#30
sivazh Scholar Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 60	As they say, "mommy's baby, daddy's maybe." DNA tests, boys, DNA tests.
sivazh Scholar Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 60

27th April 2007, 04:25 PM	#31
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe There's nothing BS about donating blood to trauma patients, cancer patients, prematurely born children and others. The "trauma patient" may be a serial killer. The cancer patient may have murdered your mother. The prem baby may turn out to be GW Bush Others may be Osama, etc. As I said, pure BS. M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,447	__________________

27th April 2007, 04:26 PM	#32
Lisa Simpson THE Lisa Simpson Administrator Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 15,987	Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe There's nothing BS about donating blood to trauma patients, cancer patients, prematurely born children and others. You did say "anyone can do" and that's certainly not true. Some people can't for medical reasons, some people can't because the Red Cross is stupid and homophobic. I can't donate blood because I'm anemic to begin with. I can't afford to lose any.
	__________________ In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue. - Wallace Sayre Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

27th April 2007, 04:54 PM	#33
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,545	Originally Posted by Moochie The "trauma patient" may be a serial killer. The cancer patient may have murdered your mother. The prem baby may turn out to be GW Bush Others may be Osama, etc. As I said, pure BS. M. Moochie, you would not be saying that if it was your ass that had cancer. Or if your ass got shot, had anemia or was having a transplant.

27th April 2007, 04:59 PM	#34
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,545	Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson You did say "anyone can do" and that's certainly not true. Some people can't for medical reasons, some people can't because the Red Cross is stupid and homophobic. I can't donate blood because I'm anemic to begin with. I can't afford to lose any. Right. Almost anyone can do. I'm with you on the stupidity and the homophobia. From the Red Cross and FDA alike. My best friend is a gay man and it's shameful he can't donate without lying. They test the blood for AIDS, syphillis and the like anyway so why reject an entire community of people based on their orientation?

27th April 2007, 05:21 PM	#35
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bronx, NY Posts: 21,223	Originally Posted by Fnord From the article: "*This sort of mosaicism is exceedingly rare* in the medical annals, though not completely unheard of. To date approximately thirty cases have been found world-wide.**" Since This Site declares that the world's population is over 6.7 Trillion, and assuming that all 30 known cases of Chimerism are alive today, this means that these chimerae make up less than 0.000,000,45% of the world's population, as opposed to the ~4% of men that could unknowingly be raising other men's children. Obviously, any question of maternity should be investigated further for purely medical reasons. But if there is no genetic match between a child and its alleged father, then it is much more likely that another man got in there first. As it is difficult to diagnose even when it is highly suspected, the real rates are subject only to conjecture.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

27th April 2007, 05:22 PM	#36
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,431	Originally Posted by ShowMe At the risk of sounding like an urban legend, I have read of cases where the father discovered the secret & divorced the woman. But was ordered to pay child support since he had "accepted the child as his" for a number of years, even when it was discovered who the real father was. If I get a chance I'll google it later. I guess you missed this thread. Not an urban legend at all. In fact it is the law in many states (including California).
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

27th April 2007, 05:23 PM	#37
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Originally Posted by ShowMe At the risk of sounding like an urban legend, I have read of cases where the father discovered the secret & divorced the woman. But was ordered to pay child support since he had "accepted the child as his" for a number of years, even when it was discovered who the real father was. If I get a chance I'll google it later. A similar thing actually happened to my brother. At 17, he felt so guilty about the girl's tears, and so fearful of her dad's anger (and our dad's, too), that he "admitted" to being the father before the kid was even born! (Stupidstupidstupid!) When the blood tests came back "inconclusive" it was too late; he had already joined the Army and agreed to wage garnishment to pay child support. Civil and military courts would not even consider the case based on his previous "admission." By the time that DNA tests became available, the child was already in her 20's. Even though the DNA tests proved that my brother was NOT the father, no civil judge in that jurisdiction would hear the case, again citing the previous "admission" and/or some obscure statute of limitations. My brother gave up a college basketball scholarship to join the Army so that some [rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8] bimbo could collect his hard-earned pay and live with a succession of men and raise her daughter in a trashy environment. The capper: At my Dad's funeral, the mother, her dad, and her daughter actually confronted me with the accusation that I could be the father! The facts that if the DNA did not match my brother, it likely would not match me; AND that they could collect no support payments from me regardless of the outcome of a DNA test was lost on these [rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8] cretins. And no, I never had sex with that woman, either.
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.