Cloned baby due in January

[Guest MrRant]

Doctor claims cloned baby due in January

Tuesday, November 26, 2002 Posted: 5:15 PM EST (2215 GMT)

 

 

ROME, Italy (AP) -- An Italian fertility doctor who has claimed without proof in the past that several women are carrying cloned babies said Tuesday that one of the children would be born in early January, but again offered no evidence.

 

Dr. Severino Antinori told a news conference that a woman was 33-weeks -- more than eight months -- pregnant with a cloned baby boy and that the child was developing in an "absolutely healthy" way.

 

In April, Antinori claimed that he knew of three pregnancies -- then in the ninth, seventh and sixth weeks of development -- involving cloned babies. He said Tuesday that the oldest of these was about to be born.

 

However, according to his statement in April, the longest pregnancy would have passed nine months in mid-November. Antinori would not explain the discrepancy Tuesday.

 

He also refused to specify if he had any role in the alleged clonings. He did say that he wouldn't be involved in the delivery of the baby, but that he had given a "cultural and scientific contribution" to a consortium of scientists involved in the pregnancies. He refused to identify the scientists. Other groups are claiming to be working on cloning a human.

 

Antinori refused to identify the woman who was to give birth in January or give her nationality. When asked where she was going to give birth he said only "countries where this is permitted." Cloning has been declared illegal in many countries.

 

Antinori, who runs a private fertility clinic in Rome, gained attention in the 1990s when he used donor eggs and hormones to help post-menopausal women to have children.

 

Experts have repeatedly dismissed Antiniori's claims and say they doubt that he is capable of achieving a cloned pregnancy.

 

You thoughts?

[Guest cynicalprofit]

It could go either good or bad. Im leaning on good because if they can clone whole bodies, they can clone body parts for people and animals for food.

 

This will hopefully be able to end the nature vs nurtue debate. But I dont think legally they have to openly discuss who the donor is, doctor client privilage. But if the guy comes forward, this will be a GREAT scientific study material.

 

Honestly Im for it just to piss of the religious people and for a whole slew of new debates to begin.

[Guest Blayde Starrfyre]

I'm leaning towards "he's full of shit."

[Guest TJH]

Kill it

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I'm leaning towards "he's full of shit."

I was thinking the same thing.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Refer to the "Have Genetics Gone Too Far?" thread for my thoughts on this, but for now I say this is great, and I really hope he can deliver the goods.

 

Kotzenjunge

Will Be Watching Out For This

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yeah, count me in as another bullshit vote.

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

How the FUCK can this is 'alright' or 'okay'? Cloning is blatantly robbing a living entity of their individuality. Does the baby have a choice of wether it wants to be a carbon copy of another? No it doesn't, obviously. The world is a fucked up place, and this only further proves that point.

 

The man responsible should fuckin' die for this.

 

Illusion - Needs anger management

[Guest J*ingus]

Babies don't have a choice when they're aborted, stillborn, or born with crippling birth defects either. The choice or lack thereof doesn't have anything to do with the matter.

 

Personally, sounds like the doctor's a charlatan to me. Too many holes in his story.

 

Kill it

 

Well, there's compassion for ya.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Babies don't have a choice when they're aborted, stillborn, or born with crippling birth defects either. The choice or lack thereof doesn't have anything to do with the matter.

No, but we might have the ability to keep kids from being stillborn or from getting said birth defects when we fully understand what triggers them. Say it's a certain gene, would it be wrong to fix that?

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

Babies don't have a choice when they're aborted, stillborn, or born with crippling birth defects either. The choice or lack thereof doesn't have anything to do with the matter.

 

Personally, sounds like the doctor's a charlatan to me. Too many holes in his story.

 

Kill it

 

Well, there's compassion for ya.

Surely the matter of cloning another human being and a natural birth defect are totally different. Cloning doesn't kill a kid, however it brings them into a world that another, exactly the same as them, has already entered, thus eliminating their purpose to exist.

 

Its depravation of morals and showcases a corrupt society by which nothing is sacred.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Removes their reason to exist? How is that? That kid is going to have as much chance as any other kid. What about the identical twin that comes into the world second? Their genetic makeup is the same as their sibling's, do they each have half of a reason to exist or something?

[Guest gthureson]

People create their own reason to exist.

 

If you adhere to some belief that because you carry a copy of someone's genetic material (but not the experience, memory or baggage) that it removes your reason to exist, then you must be talking about people having some pre-ordained destiny or fate, and as someone else will achieve it first, there is nothing left for the clone.

 

Which is nonsense.

[Guest DrTom]

Personally, I think he's full of shit. If this were true, evidence would have been offered long before now. He'll probably try to invent some "evidence" to fit the facts afterwards, and I hope people see thru those attempts when they happen.

 

Kill it

While I don't agree that the cloned baby, if it exists, should be killed, I can honestly say that I hope it dies. I am THAT violently opposed to human cloning that I hope the kid is stiullborn, just so more people won't try it. Call me a monster if you will, but I think cloning is the least moral use of science I've seen come down the pipe in a while, and anything that holds it at bay is good IMO.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

My question is, say that a child is born and then the guy says "This is the baby I cloned."

 

How can it be dis-proved, assuming he is BS'ing us? Unless we know exactly who the baby is a clone of (And I don't think it's a stretch to say that if it is the real deal, daddy dearest won't want his name known) is there any other way that we'll be able to know if it is a clone or not?

 

That said, I gotta ask - why BOTHER cloning people? We can already pretty well create babies by taking some sperm and some eggs and mixing it up in a lab. What's the point of a clone?

[Guest J*ingus]

Sure he could prove it, if he actually did it. A tour of his laboratory would be a good start. A DNA test would be even better.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Quite frankly, I don't really see a strong reason against cloning a baby. I mean, sure, it'll have the same genes, but that doesn't make it the same person. I guarentee that if you clone a kid, raise one in Wisconsin on a farm, and the other in New York City, they aren't exactly going to be carbon copies of each other. In fact, in all my 18 years (oh, yea, I'm old), Metal Maniac has the only thing closest to a good reason. But that's kinda countered by Cynical's ideas of producing food or spare 'parts for people. But actually, I don't know of any strong moral reason against it anyway. Could you guys go into that a bit more? And don't say we're playing God, because if God is there, and God didn't intend for us to be able to go this far, then we wouldn't be able to do it, would we? Assuming that God is all knowing and all powerful, of course. And I'll stop here, before the plot line completely derails.

[Guest HecateRose]

Slightly off topic, but here's a question for everyone. If this is true (I don't believe him, but that my opinion) than more people who wish to be parents may agree to carry a clone, and sooner or later someone would try to clone there own children. Say someone's child dying (I mean that the death is a certainty, and not related to a genetic problem, such as a car accident victim), should they be able to clone their dying child? The only reason I am bringing this up is that you know someone would want to, and it would become a major issue. That possibilty is one of the reasons I am against cloning in the first place, that could be a terrible burden for the cloned child to bear. They would technically be a replacement, and could prevent the parent's from actually having to deal with the death. Just wanted to see if anyone else had any thoughts on this matter.

[Guest El Satanico]

Say someone's child dying (I mean that the death is a certainty, and not related to a genetic problem, such as a car accident victim), should they be able to clone their dying child? The only reason I am bringing this up is that you know someone would want to, and it would become a major issue. That possibilty is one of the reasons I am against cloning in the first place, that could be a terrible burden for the cloned child to bear. They would technically be a replacement, and could prevent the parent's from actually having to deal with the death.

But a naturally concieved child could also face that same problem.

 

I don't see that as a problem which only a cloned child could face. Natural or cloned a child could be considered a replacement for the a child who died. Just because the natural child wouldn't be an replacement that LOOKS exactly the same wouldn't make it automatically better.

[Guest HecateRose]

I believe it is different, in that eventually the governments would have to take a stance on whether or not that should be allowed. It is different in that it would be possible for a couple to have another "natural" child anyway, know one could say that they wouldn't have decided to have the second child if the first was alive. If you specifically clone a dying child, the only purpose could be a replacement, the hope that in essence that first child never died. I see it as medically supported denial. If you have a second "natural" child, that child may come out totally different from the first, it won't be expected to look, act, grow-up the same, while a cloned child would most likely be expected to be exactly like the first in every way. Again, this is just my opinion, but I am very adament about it.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'm all in favor of this kind of genetics, but I don't think it's ready for prime time, if you get my drift.

 

Still, nothing is funnier than hearing "kill it" from the so-called Pro Life crowd.

[Guest Retro Rob]

The whole "It has no purpose in life and no reason to exsist" argument is utter bullshit. Like someone said earlier, even if two people are the same genetically, the environment in which they are raised will greatly influence their personality and decisions. Therefore, if the clone is raised in a different environment than the original, they will end up being completly different people. Keep in mind, it is the DNA that is being copied here. Even with the same DNA, people could lead very different lives depending on how they are taught, what their family structure is like, the environment, etc.

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

The whole "It has no purpose in life and no reason to exsist" argument is utter bullshit. Like someone said earlier, even if two people are the same genetically, the environment in which they are raised will greatly influence their personality and decisions. Therefore, if the clone is raised in a different environment than the original, they will end up being completly different people. Keep in mind, it is the DNA that is being copied here. Even with the same DNA, people could lead very different lives depending on how they are taught, what their family structure is like, the environment, etc.

There is no way of making the blatant robbery of one's individuality and uniqueness morally correct, so trying is futile.

[Guest Retro Rob]

A person's uniqueness isn't decided when they are born. It does in fact develop as the person gets older and the experiences they go through.

[Guest Ravenbomb]

we're pro-life?

anywho, if the baby IS cloned, five bucks and a cookie says it comes out looking like the inside of a tomato

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

I'll admit, right now, that if a cloned child was forced via shock treatment, drug addiction, iron maiden and Rob Schneider movies to become an exact replica (aside from the mental disorders) of another human in every way imaginable, I'll admit that would be morally wrong, and robbing the kid of his individuality. Of course, that'd be wrong on any child. The thing is I don't see cloning as stealing everything from one person and forcing it into another. They have the same basic potential, but in the long run that doesn't mean much. I know two kids who were both very gifted, especially in reading and writing. One managed to get a full scholarship into a pretty darn good university, and the other eventually dropped out as a freshmen. Both were the same age, and both had their IQs professionally tested, but due to how they were raised, they came out totally different. Now, I'll admit they are not genetically the same. However, they both had some pretty strong similarities. Environment and upbringing can do a whole lot to develop a personality.

And, though thankfully it was limited in my family, the younger child is almost expected to carry at least some of the better traits of an older sibling. So, yea, a cloned kid would carry that burden, but so do natural younger kids.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I'll admit, right now, that if a cloned child was forced via shock treatment, drug addiction, iron maiden and Rob Schneider movies to become an exact replica (aside from the mental disorders) of another human in every way imaginable, I'll admit that would be morally wrong, and robbing the kid of his individuality. Of course, that'd be wrong on any child. The thing is I don't see cloning as stealing everything from one person and forcing it into another. They have the same basic potential, but in the long run that doesn't mean much. I know two kids who were both very gifted, especially in reading and writing. One managed to get a full scholarship into a pretty darn good university, and the other eventually dropped out as a freshmen. Both were the same age, and both had their IQs professionally tested, but due to how they were raised, they came out totally different. Now, I'll admit they are not genetically the same. However, they both had some pretty strong similarities. Environment and upbringing can do a whole lot to develop a personality.

And, though thankfully it was limited in my family, the younger child is almost expected to carry at least some of the better traits of an older sibling. So, yea, a cloned kid would carry that burden, but so do natural younger kids.

I agree 100%.

[Guest Ravenbomb]

Rob Schneider was just an ordinary guy who enjoyed eating pie. But one day, he was cloned, and now he's Rob Schneider AND Rob Schneider...there's two of him! Now he's finding out that two heads aren't neccissarily better than one.

Rob Schneider in...

Pie Squared, rated PG-13

</idiot movie announcer>

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

I can't really be sure if that's a real Rob Schneider movie or a parody. Keep Ravenbomb away from scriptwriters and movie producers.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Personally, I think he's full of shit. If this were true, evidence would have been offered long before now. He'll probably try to invent some "evidence" to fit the facts afterwards, and I hope people see thru those attempts when they happen.

 

Kill it

While I don't agree that the cloned baby, if it exists, should be killed, I can honestly say that I hope it dies. I am THAT violently opposed to human cloning that I hope the kid is stiullborn, just so more people won't try it. Call me a monster if you will, but I think cloning is the least moral use of science I've seen come down the pipe in a while, and anything that holds it at bay is good IMO.

AMEN to that. I can't believe we, and I mean we as american tax payers, have paid or still pay for the study of cloning.

 

--Rob