The debate on human cloning and legislative morality: notes on eugenics for an age of affluence.

My forty-five years of experience as a legislative draftsman has convinced me that an ethical or moral position will either motivate or be mentioned in legislation if such a position will help to pass the law or help to get the legislator elected. For example, housing legislation, enacted to create more public housing for working people who cannot afford to buy or rent housing produced by the market, will be justified: (1) if it is good for the economy; (2) if it will provide jobs; (3) if it will help to develop a particular area for investors; and finally (4) because providing affordable homes for working people who could not otherwise afford them is the “right” thing to do. Such legislation is not only a “good” thing, but it will also look good on one’s legislative record for the next election. When abortion issues are discussed, ethical state legislators will note that they cannot prohibit abortions or prohibit women from terminating their pregnancies because the federal Constitution will not allow states to do so. However, state legislatures can provide by law that they will not pay for abortions from the welfare budget or from their public health budgets. State legislators will appeal to ethical concerns on both sides of the issue. Likewise, sex is a moral issue, and, consequently, procreation becomes a moral issue. In an article I wrote in 1968, some thirty-odd years ago, I made reference to artificial insemination.1 One of the