A couple is planning to clone a child

[Siren]

 

[Kitte]

Having nothing to do with God or any Judeo Christian system of moral obigations to said God...

I think it is wrong. I think all cloning is wrong. I think that what we as a species are doing to create and sustain life in an overpopulated, under nourished world is self defeating at best.

 

[sexy-girl]

how does it work do they take the DNA from both the mother and father and mix them together or do they just clone the father/mother

 

[Siren]

 

[ARaynes]

They are taking the woman's dna, and placing it into a donated egg.

Personally I think it is wrong. What will happen if that child is born and found out to be a clone she will be made fun of because she is different. Why put a child through that.

Besides the fact that their argument for not adopting was because "the child from an orphanage will have problems." Won't a child that has been cloned? Cloning isn't 100% fool proof yet.

If this happens the world will be just like Gattaca. Stronger with dominate as the weaker perish. No one will be "real" anymore.

 

[Siren]

ARaynes

 

[ARaynes]

Nah, my husband says no one would be mad enough to clone me. One is definately enough.LOL

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I didn't think we were that advanced medically yet...I mean the cloned sheep is already dead and they haven't had a lot of sucess with other experiements in this arena.

I think it is wrong to clone an entire person, but it would be great if we could clone healthy organs...maybe we could help all those people dying on waiting lists for healty organs.

 

[naudiz]

I don't have any strong thoughts on the morality of cloning. The science enthusiast in me is interested in cloning because of the scientific aspect, and I like to think about the medical breakthroughs cloning could lead to. Imagine there never being another list for organ donations, because the person's own organ could be cloned, eliminating the donated organ shortage and the chances of the body rejecting all in one fell swoop.

See, I think that's cool. That would save lives and spare many families a lot of emotional anxiety and personal hell as they watch the days tick by wondering if a loved one is going to be saved in time.

As for cloning people? My moral jury is still out on that one.

The problem I'm seeing with this couple's claims, inasmuch as I've read about them, is that they don't want a child from an orphanage because children from orphanages have problems. Uh, news flash: children have problems. Problems come with the territory. Non-orphans have problems. It's called growing up. If these people have this idea that a cloned child wouldn't have problems, then they aren't really ready for parenthood, period.

 

[Siren]

 

[lovetoread]

I dont see it as a viable option.

I mean how many embryos did they (the scientists) go through to get one live birth?

Not to mention,the uh...embryos that were viable,but deformed,ya know?

They had to destroy quite a few of them to get one that worked.

Anyway,how are they paying for it?

Sponsers maybe?

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I just want to say that naudiz made some great points.

These people are just unrealistic...they seem to think if the child is a little replica of them nothing will go wrong. Please...I've yet to meet an adult who isn't at least marginally fucked up.

 

[Guest]

Call me slow, but I thought cloning humans was not allowed, and this type of situation illustrates why.

Is it legal to do this? This happens, and it will open the floodgates. It's a slippery slope, and I guess I just assumed it would not be possible to put this into practice like this scenario would suggest.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

it's illegal in the us...doesn't mean it's illegal elsewhere

 

[Never]

They are taking the woman's dna, and placing it into a donated egg. That's not cloning people. There will be a mixing of genetic material. Same as when a sperm meets an egg.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

but isn't that just using different words to say the same thing?

 

[Never]

No. Cloning is taking genetic material and artificially growing it to produce an exact genetic replica. What it sounds like (no one has provided a link) is that they're taking genetic material from the woman and sticking it in another woman's egg because there's something wrong with the man's sperm. That's sexual reproduction. Same as if they took one of the man's sperm and placed it within an egg.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

No. Cloning is taking genetic material and artificially growing it to produce an exact genetic replica. What it sounds like (no one has provided a link) is that they're taking genetic material from the woman and sticking it in another woman's egg because there's something wrong with the man's sperm. That's sexual reproduction. Same as if they took one of the man's sperm and placed it within an egg.

I suppose...I don't know about genetics and such to make any sort of intelligent argument here. I guess I need to go back to the matriarchal societies thread where I am on firmer ground.

 

[MorgaineLaFay]

They are taking the woman's dna, and placing it into a donated egg. That's not cloning people. There will be a mixing of genetic material. Same as when a sperm meets an egg.

I have been thinking this very same thing.

Isn't this just like invetro?

 

[sunstruck]

No. Cloning is taking genetic material and artificially growing it to produce an exact genetic replica. What it sounds like (no one has provided a link) is that they're taking genetic material from the woman and sticking it in another woman's egg because there's something wrong with the man's sperm. That's sexual reproduction. Same as if they took one of the man's sperm and placed it within an egg.

So why not do that? I think there's a bid for fame and money under here.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

of course it's about fame and money...if they gave a damn about the kid they would keep it as quiet as possible. Think about growing up as that child.

 

[Never]

Not 'just' like it. It's harder and they'll have to stimulate the 'fertilized' egg before it starts growing. But it's sounds like it's a lot like it.

I can't find the article people are referring to so I can't say if that's the case or not.

~edit~
sunstruck,
I'm guessing they tried that option and it failed.

 

[MunchinMark]

Actually all of the 'mainsteam' DNA would have to come from one person, and then be inserted into a donor egg which has had its own DNA removed. That is cloning, although there is DNA elsewhere in the cell, (like in the mitochondria and ribosomes) which would have come from the egg donor.

What is worse-and it has already been mentioned by love-to-read- there is a very low success rate with the current methods. Not many viable embryos and out of those 90%+ abort themselves or produce results which mercifully do not survive for more than a few hours (really, really horrible stuff here). Those infants that do look normal have often got congenital health problems and do not live very long either.

In short, this is not a viable technology for human reproduction and won't be for a long time.

And as for not adopting etc. These people are selfish and remarkably short-sighted. I wouldn't want them to become parents if they are so irresponsible.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

They are going to use the woman's DNA.
They couldnt have kids because of sperm and egg problems,,but still want a child of their own blood.

They want a child from their own DNA........
instead of adopting a child from someone else.

They think it would be 'delicious' to have a cloned child.


What do you think of this?
. . .

Well, at this point, I think they're living in fantasyland. What you describe isn't yet feasible for humans.

I don't believe it is yet illegal, because that bill is still stuck in the Senate (as of a couple months ago).

The Atlantic had a good article on the subject in June, if you're interested:


Cloning articles

 

[deliciously_naughty]

What are drug are the parents doing? God they sound like total freakazoid wasps (there are good wasps and then there are the scary wasps I see walking down 5th ave)