Passage Summary: An ethicist argues against a specific reason for banning cloning. Critics say clones would just be tools for their creators' egos, but the ethicist points out that we already allow parents to treat their children as tools for their own ambitions, and that isn't illegal.

Conclusion: The fact that clones might be used to satisfy the vanity of others is not a sufficient reason to ban cloning.

Reasoning: It is currently legal to use people as vehicles for others' ambitions, such as parents pushing children to achieve, and one does not need to be a clone to be an extension of someone else's ego.

Analysis: The statement in question serves as a premise to undermine a specific objection to cloning. By pointing out that the 'vehicle for ambition' scenario is already legally and socially present in non-cloning situations (like pushy parenting), the author suggests that this specific harm isn't a unique or valid reason to outlaw cloning. You should identify this as a claim used to counter a premise of the opposing side's argument. It's a classic 'we already allow this elsewhere' move to show a double standard.