(urth) Silk's origin

[David Stockhoff]

On 10/13/2011 2:50 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Marc Aramini<marcaramini at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
>> From: Marc Aramini<marcaramini at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: (urth) Silk's origin
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List"<urth at lists.urth.net>
>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 11:47 AM
>> I still think Tussah is a father
>> insofar as he put the embryo in his mistress' stomach,
>> that's about it.  I think that's enough to make Silk
>> his son. I just don't get how the statement "NOT of my body"
>> leads us to posit any genetic congruency.
> I really liken Silk's position to Superman to some degree - Mr. Kent could say, you are my son, though not of my body.  And Clark could say, you will always be my mom, martha.  Except this time Mr. Kent died before Clark could know him.
That's certainly a good precedent despite the exception. It has an 
admirable simplicity.

The catch is the strength of the connection. I agree with James that 
mere adoption seems weak. But it is balanced by the fact that this Kent 
can add, "I caused you to be planted in my woman's womb." That may be 
enough.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 111013-1, 10/13/2011
Tested on: 10/13/2011 3:04:32 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com