I think we need to clarify here. Does this computer which has been assembled but not yet turned on have all the connections in place for sentience? Or does it need to build up the connections over time?
If the computer has all the complexity of sentience in the beginning, then it would be in a different category from the baby. If it has to develop those connections (just like us) then it would be no different then a fetus.
Let’s say it’s assembled and all the connections are in place; it just hasn’t been shipped from the factory and powered up for the first time. This would make it, from my perspective, analogous to the fetus per one aspect of Gaudere’s definition (still has not achieved the initial state of sentience) and analogous to Uncle Lou (the momentarily brain-dead relative) per another aspect (isn’t waiting for the capacity for sentience in the way a fetus is–it already has it–but doesn’t enjoy it at this exact moment). From where I’m sitting, they all have one thing in common–the potential for sentience, which none are experiencing right now.
There, what could be clearer than that? It will all be explained fully in my next book, Being, Nothingness, and Computer Chips. 
I think it is much closer to Uncle Lou then to the fetus.
The fetus is just acting some general code (DNA) that describe how to make a being that can form the proper connections (in fact, given some of the historical examples of sensory deprivation in young children, there is the very real possibility of these connections not being formed at all).
Think of the fetus as a computer program that is designed to accept inputs and store them in an appropriately weighted tree. The tree doesn’t even exist yet, no input has been supplied it. If this program acheived a state called consciousness then yes, wiping its database would be murder (that’s why we found the scene in 2001 so heart-rending).
However, until this actually occurs, the computer program can be wiped. We have no moral duty to run it.
Current stem cell research is taking this program and making it run in specific ways in order to cure diseases. Are you claiming that we should only allow cloning of whole individuals, not single organs? Is cloning an individual to generate nerve cells to repair their damaged optic nerves wrong?
Cloning? Who snuck that in here? Seriously, I’m not sure I follow you. Can you help me understand what’s behind your question, what distinction you’re trying to zero in on? Sorry if I’m being dense.