« BlogMoodMeter (tm) | Main | sticky floors and milk duds »

hello, dolly!

Hello, Dolly!

This interview with the couple who are going to attempt to have a baby cloned for them is scaring the shit out of me. (Laurence did a good post on it)

This couple comes off as self-obsessed lunatics. Their divine destiny? God wants them to do this? What religion do they belong to where God is ok with cloning. Isn't that copyright infringement?

They dismiss adoption as an option, saying "You can adopt a baby overseas, and then in a lot of countries, what happens is by the time you get the baby, they've been so messed up in the orphanage where they are that you are taking on a health hazard. " Besides the fact that there are plenty of adoptable babies who are not "messed up," do they not think that cloning a child will be taking on even greater health hazards.

This woman is going to have an identical version of herself. That's just wrong. "And God willing, if this works, maybe two years from now, we'll clone me," says the husband. Great, they are going to raise themselves.

They don't plan on telling the child she is a clone until she's an adult. Won't it be just a bit obvious before then? Is it me? Is anyone else feeling shivery chills about this?


When that woman's mother told her that she hoped "you have kids just like you" (the ultimate parent threat) I don't think she meant it literally. Let's hope she doesn't say it to her own "mini-me"

Copyright infringement, indeed!
You crack me up.

People. Need to think. About overpopulation before fucking cloning their ignorant priveledge-taking asses.

I hadn't heard about that... I completely agree with you - this is just plain fucking wrong. I'm still giggling over copyright infringement, though. :-)

With all of the other options available to get a child, to choose to clone yourself makes it look like these two have some sort of "God complex". I'm all for cloning organs since there is such a shortage of donors but cloning a whole person seems...extreme and more that a little bizarre.

I can't imagine the number of children worldwide who need parents. Yes some of them have problems (of course, you never know what you're going to get when you have a biological child either) but they are not "messed up". Isn't that the ultimate act of vanity to say the only child good enough to be your child is your own little Mini-Me? Then again, maybe the reason these folks are dismissing adoption is because the adoption officials have dismissed them. As nutcases.

I work at an international adoption agency, and they're theories are quite off, to say the least.

I wouldn't think anyone would do this, given the aging problems that Dolly the sheep and other cloned animals have had.

I think the entire thing is insane and arrogant. Not because they're playing God but because they simply must reproduce themselves at any cost. Phooey.

some people are so twisted. yes, i love myself so much that i want to clone myself in a child. egads.

Nancy's comment about old cells is right on. And, how about a damaged fetus? The success rate of cloning with large mammals is extremely small. And, I go along with the unethical part, although at some point in the future people may think otherwise.

From the interview:
KATHY: We'll tell the world that this child was conceived through cloning when it's safe for the child, when the political climate and the emotional climate will be accepting.

Um, hello? You're telling the world on CNN that you're cloning this child! If they're moronic enough not to recognize the stupidity of that statement, they shouldn't be allowed to raise a child, let alone clone one based on the DNA of a person dumb enough to make that statement.

Playing devil's advocate, I suppose -- and of course, I could be way off -- but in a small way, isn't that what many people do when they insist, at any cost, upon making a baby?

By that I mean folks who have a terrible time conceiving -- couples who spend years and years and tens (hundreds) of thousands of dollars on clinics and specialists and drugs, when there are babies and children desperate for parents. I know adopting a child isn't a cakewalk by any means (I'm adopted myself and do know what my parents went through), but the reason behind the clinics/procedures/drugs is so often "but we want one of our OWN." When I hear that, I can't help but translate "We can't/won't be satisfied with just any child; we want a little carbon copy of US."

I don't see a huge difference. I really don't.

Well, someone is going to do it sooner or later. I would hate for it to be these people but who the fuck am I to choose.
I find this far more morally wrong than using our dead as a resource.

Well, someone is going to do it sooner or later. I would hate for it to be these people but who the fuck am I to choose.
I find this far more morally wrong than using our dead as a resource.

Medical technology is advancing far more rapidly than the ethical and moral debate that rightfully should accompany it.

Although cloning is far from technically perfected, I think that in time it will be looked upon in the same accepting light as the "test tube babies" which were originally considered unnatural. Now there are so many of them around that it hardly seems worth mentioning. Fertility interventions (such as IVF) are now such a common procedure that it is even covered by some HMOs, although the early practitioners were accused of "playing God."

I can understand the desire for a child of one's own, but I am suspect about why this particular couple would take the unknown risks involved with cloing at this point in time vs. the more stable and predictable fertility procedures available now. However, I find it less disturbing than creating a clone to harvest body parts as needed.

This topic needs a lot more practice, exposure, reflection and debate. Which, come to think of it, may have been the motivation behind the CNN appearance.

Cloning just seems to have implications that fertility treatments don't. It's not an ethical issue for me - mostly I was just pointing out the inanity of some of the statements made by the couple - it's more of an issue where the science is unexact. They are messing with something that they have no idea will work or not, and they are knowingly taking the risk of having a child who may not fare well physically. See Dolly and other cloned animals for examples of what I mean.

Mostly, I think the couple are coming off all wrong. Their reasons for wanting a clone do not tug at my heartstrings. Especially with their idiotic comment about adoption.

There is a significant difference between reproductive assistance (test tube fertilization, etc.) and cloning. If cloning becomes the norm, it limits genetic mixing, which is the cornerstone of continued evolution and genetic health of a species. If genes do not blend, the gene pool gets shallower and shallower. Since it sounds like these two are already in the genetic wading pool, it isn't a good trend.

This is not to say that I am in favour of folks who use the other technologies. If you are unable to produce a child, it is because you are physically defective. This is not shameful, it is a fact. Nature is trying to protect the species from becoming physically weaker. This does not mean that you wouldn't be a fantastic parent. Adopt for god's sake.

Why force your crappy genes onto children who will likely face a similar crisis because of your selfishness? People who use these technologies to force fertility often have preemie babies with tons of health problems, etc. How is that better than adopting a child with known problems?

hey there my friend,
these people are freaks and are absolutly insane. We sould just leave these people to thier crazy dreams and maybe they'll shut-up. ovesly thier looking for pulisaty.

hey there my friend,
these people are freaks and are absolutly insane. We sould just leave these people to thier crazy dreams and maybe they'll shut-up. ovesly thier looking for pulisaty.