censor those you don't agree with... how very "christian" of ya.

This chick (catholichomeschool) will not allow me to post this (or any other) response to her video... as you can see, it isn't offensive (unless, of course, the truth is offensive) so I'll post it here. This is in response to this poster (ignatiusofantioch2) who has this annoying habit of SPAM'ing the same tired copy & paste crapola from every anti-abortion site in the internets...

ignatius: "Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-valuable tissue mass to valuable human being"

me: That is precious. So, are you saying that a person who "cross[es] the street" or "roll[s] over in bed" ceases to be a person whenever they engage in these behaviours? You are being deliberately untruthful or misleading (at best) if you are going to pretend that gestation, labor and the birthing experience are merely about "eight inches "... which would be par for the course among the anti-abortion extremists.

I'd like to add more, such as the fact that the value of a womans pregnancy is determined by the pregnant woman... how this dude (or I) *feel* about her pregnancy is irrelevant... it doesn't change science and it doesn't change the law.

Bring on the crazies...

So, there is this wackadoo on youtube who sometimes calls herself kirstiedale3 - she claims to be an adult... I'll let you be the judge. So, she doesn't care so much for an opposing view & clearly is unable to come up with a valid retort (one which would include any valid, factual information which has anything at all to do with the topic of abortion rights) and in lieu of this, she prefers to use profanity (I, for one, am shocked and chagrined!) and ad hominem as her "argument." It apparently bothers her that I include valid and truthful scientific data, statistics, legal precedent, etc in my posts. I totally get that it can be aggravating when science, the law and common sense do not support your view but seriously, it only makes it worse to respond to a post concerning abortion statistics with the following diatribe:

"she claims to be a busy mom of 3 happy wife,femenist,ect ect,not busy anough it may seem!husband out working all hours to pay the bills for his strong, independent,active femenist..??????she needs to go comment on the good house keeping guide,she may give better advice to people who will listen,,,,,,,there is always one,that has to butt in and think they know everything !!!!!!dont burst her bubble,she will have nothing else to do,,,lol"

So, in addition to having issues with grammar, punctuation (what is up with the comma's?) & sentence structure, she also appears unable to comprehend what the words: strong, independent, active and feminist (er... "femenist") mean. The upside is that her spelling makes me giggle. The inability to control her underlying anger issues is a bit disturbing but come on... I've just met the lass, there is simply no way that I am responsible for those issues. Now, her posts are entertaining and are filed under the "things that make you go HMMM" heading. Unfortunately there exists serious amounts of misogyny within the extreme anti-abortion group (which, fortunately is a very small group) - the upside to this is that rational, thinking and relatively sane people could never agree with these extremists opinions... point in case, this li'l nugget from a dude called "BulldogsRule12"... he was responding to a comment I made asking why the personal beliefs and full legal rights of the pregnant woman wouldn't take precedent over his (or my) opinions regarding pregnancy, life and/or abortion. His response:

"The pregnant woman took herself out of the conversation by getting pregnant in the first place"

Yes, ladies and gentlemen... this fella actually believes that once a woman becomes pregnant, she is no longer relevant (aside from her uterus, which houses his bizarre obsession... "fetus fetish," if you will) Oh lordy... I dig it when they reveal their true agenda: regulating women to the status of "walking uterus." I kind of thought it was something they'd rather keep under wraps but I suppose when a woman has the gall to challenge their thinking, it just kinda slips out, eh? Good to know that sweet, li'l ole me can fluster these folks so bloody much. Oh, there is this other person who sometimes uses the name sintetsu. He doesn't hide his misogyny (which makes me sad for any women in his life) he writes things like:

* fucking ignorant selfish immature vile whore
* hypocritical irresponsible IMMATURE feminists go back to your cave, primate
* stupid ignorant hypocritical immature selfish primal whores.
* maybe you should keep those legs closed? (me: because apparently you can't get pregnant that way)
* selfish irresponsible promiscuous animals
* thats why war exists. (me: yes, the reason war exists is because of abortion. seriously... not religion or oil or greed... just abortion. Ahhhh.)

All of which are super retarded totally valid arguments for those opposed to abortion to make, no? If nothing else, they've proven my point. Gotta love 'em!!

Fetal Brainwaves

A favorite anti-abortion myth is the "fetal pain" myth... as taken from the ironically named "abortion facts" web page:

"the cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex."

Now, if we go to the Mayo Clinic we would find the following regarding the thalamus:

"What the thalamus does is act as a sorting and switching station located deep inside the brain. The thalamus quickly forwards the pain message simultaneously to three specialized regions of the brain: the physical sensation region (somatosensory cortex), the emotional feeling region (limbic system) and the thinking region (frontal cortex). Your brain responds to pain by sending messages that moderate the pain in the spinal cord. "

Ummm... you might be asking yourself just how the heck any stimulus could be "felt" if one "completely removes the cortex" considering the thalamus forwards the stimulus message directly to the somatosensory, limbic system and the frontal cortex. You're right... it can't be "felt" without the cortex.

But hey... scientific facts? Who needs 'em... they just think abortion is icky.

It seems that the anti-abortion extremists enjoy using misinformation (considering that they tend to employ this tactic quite regularly.) I'm not sure if they think this will make women decide not to have abortions (although, as far as I know, no woman has ever listed a reason for terminating a pregnancy as "my fetus cannot feel pain.") But never mind those sneaky devils, there will always be people around to ensure that these woman receive accurate medical information (thanks Mayo Clinic!)

On another note... I recently had a fellah (yes, a person who will never know the emotional or physical -not to mention the financial- responsibilities of giving birth to a child) chastise me for using a photograph of a 6 week abortion. He would prefer that I use the photographs that the anti-abortion extremists use (usually very much wanted pregnancies which ended in still birth or therapeutic abortion). Apparently, he is of the mind that a 6 week abortion looks just like a 40 week full term baby (killed moments prior to birth, no less.) OH, the emotional horror!!!

Listen dude... I'm sorry... but this is what a 6 week abortion looks like...

And may I add (for the record and all) that if I feel compelled to use terms such as "dude", I can use my God-given right (free will... thanks God!) to use this term (and any other I so deem necessary) whenever and where ever I like. It is not enough that this guy wants to control my reproduction and my choice of medically accurate information... he would also like to control my use of verbiage.

Hey Jasper... go fuck yourself.

Since we're sharing, Mr. Jasper...

* God is not affected in any way by abortion.
* God loves women.
* God loves women who have terminated their pregnancies.
* God loves all of Her creatures.
* God loves pro-choice and anti-abortion people.
* Abortion has existed as long as women have been biologically able to become pregnant.
* Abortion is a good, moral choice for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.
* Abortion is not a sin.
* God does not create zombies via raising dead people from their graves - that's freaky-deaky!
* "Abortion" has no "desire" (abortion is a medical procedure not capable of desiring anything.)
* A woman has an abortion when her desire is to not have a baby (kudos on keeping with the anti-abortion attempt to take women out of the equation.)
* For some women facing an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is the only choice filled with hope.
* Satan is imaginary. (due to man-kinds inability to accept responsibility for it's own misfortune.)
* Abortion is not evil.
* Evil is the logical opposite to the concept of good (which all of Gods creation possess.) without evil mankind could not perfect it's soul.
* The pregnant woman/embryo*fetus relationship is unitary... the only reason this relationship could ever be considered adversarial is when anti-abortion extremists believe that they (and not the pregnant woman) know what is best for the woman and her embryo/fetus (whereby taking rights away from pregnant women and giving them to her embryo/fetus.)
* Abortion plays no role in the relationship between men and women, mothers and children, or people and God.

PS "hisman" sounds like a real wanker. - why would some whack-job claim to speak for God or Satan? And why should I care what his personal opinions are?

Silly anti-abortionists, truth is our friend!

Here is another anti-abortion myth debunked... the "abortion" photo/dead fetus props...

"A considerable number of anti-abortion visuals feature an almost fully developed fetus. Abortions preformed at this stage via hysterotomy or D&Xabortions are rare [approximately 0.08% are performed after 24weeks, when the fetus may be viable - no fetal demise] A July 1992 LIFE magazine article, The Great Divide, reported that Reverend Robert Schenk, member of anti-choice coalition Operation rescue, attended a demonstration outside an abortion clinic in Buffalo, NY, with "Baby Tia", a7-inch, gray-tinted and formaldehyde-soaked dead fetus. In the escalating madness of the crowd, the fetus was dropped onto the sneaker-trodden street. Authorities arrested Schenk and confiscated the fetus, which was taken to a coroner, only to be identified as an approximately 20-week-old stillborn. The article reads, "Many pro-choice supporters in Buffalo are angry about the distance between their reality-what they see in the clinics-and the images the anti-abortionists present as fact. 'What they are showing to the public is a lie,' says Joni Ladowski, a nurse at a nearby clinic, as she unfolds a length of gauze. In the center lies what appears to be a clot the size of a peanut. It is a fetus, nine weeks old.'This is an abortion,' she says."

You know, without misinformation, pseudoscience and/or outright lies, the anti-abortion extremists would have nothing (except their religion/personal belief system) Those of us who live within the realm of reality will always be here to provide accurate information in order to educate the average person about the truth surrounding abortion... the information is there.

More on the misrepresentations and misinformation used by the anti-abortion forces:

"Through the construction of public fetal images as 'baby pictures,' the fetus is visibly separated from its mother and can consequently enter the social imagination alone. It is relatively easy to untangle the symbolic reasons that would encourage fetal autonomy: Embryo photography has personified the fetus by replacing the mother with empty space. As Daniels (1993) has said, 'In much of the promotional literature of the anti-abortion movement, the fetus is visually severed from the mother, presented as an autonomous free-floating being, attached tenuously to the 'mother ship' by the umbilical cord.' or, as Franklin (1991) says, 'The conditions for spectator recognition of and identification with the fetus are achieved on the basis of its separation and individuation from the mother.'"

~Taylor, Janelle. 1998. Image of Contradiction: Obstetrical Ultrasound in American Culture. In Franklin, S. and Ragone, H. (eds.) Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia.

~Daniels, Cynthia R. 1993. At Women's Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Do you see spots?

Mr. Jasper: Freaking weird, I never heard of that. Nice way to dehumanize your unborn child.

Mellankelly: Oooh... "dehumanize [my] unborn child"... sounds deliciously evil, doesn't it? Way to appear rational, Mr. Jasper. By the way...

"I no longer refer to it as "alien". He or she is my bean. I don't know why I referred to baby as alien in the first place, it seems so mean. Maybe I was scared to bond with it because of the chances of miscarriage"
~from Baby says "Baff" blog

"The more people I tell about our baby bean birkel (which is how we refer to our baby at present, it being the size of a bean)"
~from Baby Birkel blog

"Well, when Dam and I saw our first ultrasound the words that popped out of my mouth was, 'It looks like a little kidney bean.' From there Dam referred to it as Bean."
~from try, try, try again blog

"I've known pregnant women who refer to their fetus as "the bean." I was briefly pregnant once, and I referred to the lil' thing as "Spud." Some women grow beans, apparently I was growing a potato. The fact that it didn't take is evidence that humans were not meant to birth potatoes. "
~from the MetaFilter community weblog entitled "your fetus as produce."

I found a lot more but I think anyone reading will get the point (not too sure if Mr. Jasper can grasp the concept) that many women refer to their fetus or their "belly" as many different things during pregnancy, including "the bean" or "bean" or sometimes "baby bean" - they certainly aren't dehumanizing anything... that is utter rubbish.

Mr. Jasper: Let’s see, you slaughtered and killed one of your babies and I’m the person lacking in judgment or prudence? Maybe you should let your other children know that you killed their sibling.

Mellankelly: When you use words like "slaughtered" and "babies" to describe abortion, yes, I find words like "lacking in judgment or prudence" befitting their subject.
Oh, gosh... when my son was old enough to talk about an act as evil as rape (and including circumstances which concerned him), I most certainly explained the situation to him. I think it extremely important that women share their personal experience with unwanted pregnancy in order to put things into perspective; considering the anti-abortion extremists wish to demonize women or take women out of the picture all together. It is imperative that rational people are exposed to the truth when it comes to the real reasons why women terminate their pregnancies... I think reading about or speaking with women who have made that decision open the eyes of those people who have been led to believe that women who terminate their pregnancies are harlots who get pregnant and abort on a whim.
Now, even my 16 year old son can recognize that an embryo is not a sibling... your judgement is clouded by your unhealthy fixation with the reproductive choices of complete strangers, you really ought to see someone about that.
Further, I've never killed a baby... I've given birth to three and there are still three hangin' around my house... again, it may help to take deep breaths prior to typing.

Mr. Jasper: I guess you’re right, I should except much thought from a selfish heathen.

Mellankelly: I'm not sure what you meant to write there, it appears as if you get flustered easily and lose track of your thoughts. I believe you meant "accept such thoughts?" Please correct me if I'm wrong. Although I'm not sure if "heathen" is the correct term as I do not doubt that we are all praying to the same God. However, I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant as it was written by men. Now the selfish part is debatable... I suppose there are aspects of our lives where we can tend to be selfish but on the whole I would have to disagree that selfish would be a proper adjective in which to describe me, as a person (particularly since you're just some random guy on the Internet.)

PS. Mr. Jasper... please seek help.

Does Elvis speak to you?

Mr. Jasper: oh yea, you refered to your unborn child as "The Bean." Kinda wierd

Mellankelly: I did not refer to my fetus as my "unborn child" and yes, when quickening began, we called it "The Bean" - like a Mexican jumping bean... you find that weird yet you continue to refer to abortion as infanticide and genocide (that's not weird at all). I also made reference that I terminated my second pregnancy prior to quickening and that I think whatever colloquial terms one chooses to use does not have any consequence whatsoever on either of our arguments... you obviously disagree. Probably because you believe that if you said it, it must be true. Here we disagree once again.

Mr. Jasper: A cop out I would say. You refered to your unborn child as the "baby' didn't you? I have you all twisted up now, your back against the wall... you're not even willing to admit or give the basic respect and dignity to your own children, your own flesh and blood when they were inside you. How shameful. You have such a hard heart, examine your conscience.

Mellankelly: By that reasoning, my dog (Molly Beatrice Sorci) is not only a part of my family, she is a person. It's true, right? Because that is how we refer to her... I'm her mommy, my husband is her daddy and my children are her siblings. Sometimes we refer to her as a baby... we say things like "Who's my baby?" and "There's my baby!" Yes, your argument that whatever one chooses to call something actually alters what that thing is sounds completely grounded in logic and not at all driven by your abhorrence of abortion. And as far as having me "all twisted up" or "against the wall", well, this is merely one more reason why I bestow upon you the title of Jackass (fool; a person lacking in judgment or prudence.) I make that statement because I believe, as evidenced by your very words, that you lack the ability to discipline yourself by the use of reason. You appear to become so haughtily contemptuous that your argument is secondary to your emotive babbling. Try stepping back and taking a deep breath... next, use logic and reason as a basis for your argument - I think things would be a lot clearer for anyone reading your words (or, perhaps you'd realize how ridiculous your words are). Well, just a suggestion... clearly, you are free to argue in any manner you see fit.

Mr. Jasper: Cardinal Eagan put it well addressing Bella Pelosi

Mellankelly: Now Jasper, why on earth would what Cardinal Eagan has to say matter in the least to me? Just out of curiosity, would that be Cardinal Edward Egan? The same Cardinal Eagan that incited a group of priests to issue a letter urging the archdiocesan clergy to cast a vote of ”no confidence” against him? That aside, a man who could be so cruel and uncaring towards the many real hardships facing women (hardships, might I add, that he will never have the displeasure of experiencing) with these words: "...'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason" Yes, his Jesus would be so proud. What a horrible little man hiding behind his religious notions. Just YIK! Who's glad she's not a Catholic? You betchya, I am!

reading comprehension is a must!

Mr. Jasper: Exactly?? are you saying unborn children don't count?

Mellankelly: Again dear, I say what I mean and I mean exactly what I say. I'm saying that a person, even children (no need for adjectives or qualifiers - it is simply not necessary to change the meaning of certain words in order to get my point across) have no right to force another person, even their parents to endure any form of bodily invasion (I used "blood test" as an example). You cannot give a fertilized egg greater rights than a person (that would be unconstitutional).

Mr. Jasper: when you were pregnant with children, tell me, when they kicked inside of you, did you say "the baby kicked" or "the fetus kicked" or maybe you said (since you believe in bodily invasions) "the alien kicked". which was it?

Mellankelly: I've no idea why this would be of any consequence. I've been pregnant four times and experienced quickening three of the four times. I terminated my second pregnancy prior to quickening. During my first pregnancy we referred to my belly as "The Bean." My question for you sir is why would it be of any consequence which colloquial terms one chooses to refer to her pregnancy? Clearly, using adjectives and/or qualifiers such as "unborn" or "preborn" does not change what a fertilized egg is and neither would a colloquialism. Kind of sounds like Mr. Jasper is grasping at straws, no?

Mr. Jasper: Look, I don't doubt you're a good Mom, I bet you are. I think you get the point I was trying to make.

Mellankelly: I might have, if you'd actually made a point. As it stands, all you did was question my parenting skills... something that you know nothing about, may I add. Oh well, ad hominem is par for the course with anti-abortion extremists.

Mr. Jasper: Your side will never be able to win this debate. We are not a great nation if we allow the killing of unborn children

Mellankelly: My "side"? Really? We live in the greatest country in the world, a country where the rights of any person born or naturalized (this includes pregnant women) are fully protected by our Constitution. Considering that 43 million women of reproductive age (7 in 10), are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant, I highly doubt that they would support legislation which would prohibit them from using any contraceptive method that may potentially harm a fertilized egg (such as the pill or EC). This great nation will not allow for rights and personal liberties to be taken away from half of its population due to the personal belief systems of a few... never. I thank God (daily) that I was born into a country where abortion was a safe and legal option for me.

Third times a charm, Mr. Anonymous

Mr. Anonymous: this isn't about a womans right. It is about a babys right. To live.

Mellankelly: No, it's not... a baby rights are not questionable... any person born or naturalized in the US is entitled to her full rights under the Constitution. Why, may I ask, should a woman suddenly be forced to give up her rights when she becomes pregnant (regardless of whether or not the pregnancy is wanted?) The person most qualified to make decisions regarding her pregnancy is the pregnant woman... but I'm sure that you'd be okay with legislatures making your medical decisions for you, right?

Mr. Anonymous: Look at it this way... [insert fairy tale here]

Mellankelly: Listen, there is nothing that can be compared to the pregnant woman/embryo*fetus relationship... and you belittle the emotional and physical (sometimes life-threatening) endeavor that is pregnancy and the labor/birth process when you compare it to an old lady entering your yard. Have you never been pregnant? Do you dare trivialize the impact that pregnancy, childbirth (not to mention child rearing) has on a woman's physical and emotional well-being? I get that you're pro-(fetal)life and that the women whose lives are affected by an unwanted or doomed pregnancy are secondary (at best.) That's just something that I'll never understand. It's unconscionable.

Mr. Anonymous: By saying that you have the right to kill your child, they ARE interfering, not with your rights, but with the childs.

Mellankelly: I've never claimed a right to kill my children... when people kill their children they go to jail or spend a serious amount of time in a psychiatric facility. Children are protected by the constitution... interestingly enough though, they do not have the right to force another person (including their parents) to undergo any form of bodily invasion for any reason.

Vote No on 48

I know my sisters in Colorado have been paying close attention to this ideological guffaw and I'm hoping they can help end the lunacy by helping here.

adjectives and qualifiers

So I was reading blogs on various social issues (I'm always interested in the point of view of those who see things differently than I do). I love reading opposing views particularly those that are introspective, thought-provoking and intelligent. I like how it challenges us to take a deeper look at our own opinions, beliefs and convictions. What I have a difficult time with are those people who insist upon using nonsensical ramblings (or "brain farts") which include not one bit of factual information to support the piffle they spew.

This example comes from a gal who undertakes to set herself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge... and we all know what happens when we do that! Anyhoo, she was writing of the horrible instances of crazy people who cut open women's abdomens and uterus' in order to take the nearly full term fetuses to pass of as their own. Way, way YIK and Evil. But here's what galled her:

"During the course of the show that focused on a few specific cases, some doctors and therapists and other experts were interviewed regarding the nature of these cases and the people who committed such horrible crimes. I was struck with how every "expert" referred to the unborn stolen children as Fetuses."

Here it appears to bother her that experts in the medical field use proper medical terminology when speaking of medical cases... go figure. These doctors could be completely anti-abortion, they may even be activists - simply because they use proper medical terms does not mean that they support abortion rights. Would she prefer that they had said something like "Well, they cut into her hoo-haw and sliced through the unborn receptacle thingymagiggy..."? Be serious. Then there is this:

It is pure hypocrisy to refer to unborn babies as fetuses and not refer to adults as homo sapiens and children as offspring.

Somebody doesn't understand the word "hypocrisy". No... if we're going to refer to a fetus as an "unborn baby" we should refer to adults as "undead corpses" otherwise she's comparing apples to orangutans. The truth is that a fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby and a corpse is a corpse. And to be fair, one could be anti-abortion and accept proper medical terminology - a fetus has the potential to become a baby just as a fertilized egg has the potential to become a zygote and a zygote to become an embryo and an embryo to become a fetus (it's a bit tricky making it all that way as many studies reflect that anywhere from 30-70% of all fertilized eggs perish spontaneously). Why wouldn't one make the statement that one believes that killing a fetus (or zygote or embryo) is wrong? Why do they insist upon their cute little adjectives and qualifiers (like "unborn"baby and "preborn")? I'm guessing they believe that the use of emotionally charged words will grab the public ear better than truthful medical words. That was the explanation behind the Partial-Truth-Abortion-Ban... grabs ya a little more than Intact D&E or IDX, doesn't it?

Oh God... she goes on to say that the reason the term "fetus" is used is "...simply the pro-abortion community's influence at dehumanizing an unborn child." (there's that adjective again). Wow... I did not realize our reach went so far... YAY us!! So, I guess abortion will never be criminalized since the pro-choice community seems to have such an influence which surely reaches past the scientific realm and into other area's such as law, religion, philosophy and perhaps even thanatology.

This ended up being wa-hay longer than I thought so I will continue with my thoughts about a blog that I can respectfully disagree with next time...

The Concept of Personhood

This question seems to be popping up all over the place (not just that so-called "egg-as-persons" garbage in Colorado). It seems to be the anti-abortion folk's favorite tune these days (perhaps because every other tactic has failed to accomplish their ultimate goal of criminalizing abortion). First we need to establish exactly what we're attempting to define here when we are talking about the "personhood" of a fertilized egg. What does someone mean when they say "person" or "personhood" should apply to the zygote, embryo and the fetus? Do they mean an individual (existing as a distinct entity) human being? Or are they being more specific and speaking about the personality of a human being (as in "self")? Or maybe they are leaning more towards religiousness and are speaking of the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures? Regardless of which definition is used, how can these possibly be applied to a fertilized egg?

So let us imagine (if you will) that these people are speaking of some philosophical ideal of "personhood", shall we? Considering that it is not plausible that people will put aside their personal belief systems in order to agree upon a philosophical definition of "personhood", it would appear to be illogical to argue from this perspective either.

I suppose next they'll be attempting to define the essential attributes of other concepts such as faith or love.

I find it ever so odd that these people not only wish to establish the egg-as-person but they loathe abortion so much so that they wish to give these eggs rights that a born person does not even have (more rights than any man, woman and/or child in this country). A child does not have the right to force it's parents to undergo any form of bodily invasion (including a blood test) without the parents consent. The law fully supports the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.

These people can question the "personhood" of the zygote/embryo/fetus all they want... what they simply cannot do is question the "personhood" of a pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not her pregnancy is wanted).

6 year old eats twin?

Perhaps Krazy Kristy Burton would be interested in fighting for the rights of these "unborn".

Basicaly, a six year old was suffering stomach pains which appeared to be a tumor and turned out to be an embryo (what the religously motivated anti-abortion forces would call a "person"). Apparently, cases where one of a set of twins absorbs the other in the womb occur in one of 500,000 live births.

I found another incident from 2005 which occured in Bangladesh. Doctors removed a fetus from the abdomen of a 16 year-old by the name of Abu Raihan. Apparently the fetus grew like a tumor (weighing almost 5 pounds) and would have become the boy’s twin if it had developed normally.

Then there is the Vanishing Twin Syndrome in which one of a set of a twins disappears in the uterus during pregnancy. This is far more common than the above, occuring in 21-30% of multifetal pregnancies. That is so bizarre.