I think it's reasonable to assume that Jesus was speaking of natural fathers. But it's certainly possible that He was including adoptive fathers in his rhetorical question, since the care of widows and orphans was considered the highest form of charity among Jews, and the act of adoption obviously reflects the operation of grace.
I also notice that you skipped over including adoptive fathers in your incest/abuse stats.
There's a logical reason for this, since adoptive fathers are categorically different from stepfathers and, obviously, live-in boyfriends. Adoptive parents almost always choose to have adopted children, whereas the same cannot be assumed for stepfathers, and especially live-in boyfriends.
I suppose that's because they don't fit your agenda, in that they don't have higher rates than the NATURAL.
I don't know what the rates are, but presumably the abuse rate would be much closer to that of natural fathers than stepfathers and live-in boyfriends, for the aforementioned reason.
Yeah, maybe He was including His unnatural father, Joseph.
You assume so much, and create so many distinctions, that you offend. You've been told that before, but you obviously don't have respect for the opinions offered you, so I'm sure you'll shoulder on. The only other person I've encountered here that was so demeaning regarding this topic was another uber-Catholic, non-adoptive parent, askel5. I'm not sure what exactly it is in your culture that fosters this kind of arrogance, but it does more harm than good.
If you were an adoptive parent you'd know that.