Reader comments
9-year old Greek girl carrying her embryonic twin

I can't believe they killed the fetus! This is like Terry Schiavo all over again.

The girl is 9 years old. Way to young to have a baby. And, it didn't sound like they knew it was an embryo until after it was removed. In general, I don't believe in "abortion" But I think in particular situations, such as this, it's in the best intrest of the "mother". She is only nine years old after all.

The girl wasn't pregnant. SHE was a twin who absorbed the other fetus (her twin).

Dwight had the same interesting circumstance (and FYI, he wasn't pregnant either).

Did ya not read the entire article?

First, the 9 year had her twin inside her. She wasn't pregnant and wasn't "having a baby."

Lastly, the "fetus" had no brain or umbilical cord. Hence, this object was just a mass of tissue with recognizable elements.

Please read the entire article before posting silly comments.

Please, Please Read The Article People, before jumping to your forgone, judgmental, conclusions. You see the words 9 year old and Fetus and you want to jump right in. I saw that also but what it interested me in doing was reading the article well. Look before you shout or want to Shoot. This is something that happens in Nature. Like big fat women and when they operate they find a benign tumor as big as a whatever it is as big as. Football, Baseball, Basketball or Stuie (from Family Guy).

I suggest that those who don't understand what an "embryonic twin" is should google the term and find some pictures of one. They are not babies. The embryonic twin is absorbed by the surviving twin prior to birth and is not a viable human being - just a mass of distorted tissue. Most aren't even recognizable and more closely resemble a tumor with hairs growing out of it.

Let's not get on our high-horse in ignorance - it just makes us look ... ignorant.

are just utterly bizarre

(1) This is not like Terry Schiavo. They didn't realize it was a fetus until after it was removed. Before then, they thought it was something else ... because who expects this to happen to a nine-year-old girl. In the Schiavo case, they knew a human being would die when they pulled the plug. In this case, they didn't realize a fetus would die when they cut off a growth from the little girl's stomach.

(2) The 9-year-old is not pregnant because she was involved in a procreative act. She was pregnant because she absorbed her twin.

Seriously, how bad are the reading comprehension skills in this state?

That was a funny part. Seriously, people relax. woah

Please tell me that the average functional literacy level of the Deseret News readership is not actually as low as one would surmise from the first two comments!!!! I have to admit that the AP's use of the term "carrying" in this context, probably a set-up to attract attention to the article, does create an initial impression of pregnancy, but please! And what makes these comments even more hilarious (and pathetic) is that "Huh?" truly thought that he/she was setting the first person straight! Unbelieveable... .

Guys - the first two comments were probably just a joke. Un-press the panic button!

The headline is misleading, perhaps puposely so to attract reader attention. She was "carrying" this one time fetus and while it was in her stomach it was almost certainly not in her uterus. She was not pregnant in any sense of the word.

This is most accurately described as a tumor comprised of fetal tissue.

Seriously, I was once absorbed.

What about the functional literacy level of those who are not smart enough to realize the first two comments were made in jest? Personally, I thought the first two comments were hilarious, but the comments following are even funnier!

If y'all can't figure out that the first comment was a joke, you need to go to humor reforms school.

And if any of you need clarification that the girl wasn't pregnant, or that the growth which was removed from her wasn't a fetus, you just need to go to school.

Is that the fetus would have been absorbed and died of natural processes before this girl was born and the remains of the fetus just happened to still be there. This has nothing to do with the abortion debate in the least; people on both sides of that issue would likely agree there is nothing to argue about here. It is possible that the writer of this article deliberately avoided reporting whether it was a viable, living fetus just to stir interest and critics into posting.

Did the little girl consent to the abortion or did her parents and doctors push it on her? It's just not right to be pregnant with your own sister.

Why is the Des News publishing articles in favor of abortion?

There is no way that the "fetus" could be viable. There is no umbilical cord, which is how a fetus is fed. It has been in her for 9 years. Just give it a little thought. Is it going to stay that small for nine years if it was viable? HELLO

Mwaa-ha-ha. First comment, mildly funny. Follow-up comments, hysterical.

The observations hre by some individuals claiming this is an abortion makes as much sense as them claiming a fetus is not a baby!
This was a TUMOR, with the remains of a 10 year old fetus, not fully developed; not fully formed, not ever going to attain either any more development or maturity.
Those who would caution these posters to READ the article are blowing into the wind.....these same posters have no desire for truth nor is knowledge in the minds of these people.
We must pray for their enlightenment.