Let's take a look:
"These human bodies without any semblance of consciousness would not be considered persons, and thus it would be perfectly legal to keep them 'alive' as a future source of organs."
"Alive." Never have a pair of quotation marks loomed so ominously. Take the mouse-frog technology, apply it to humans, combine it with cloning, and you are become a god: with a single cell taken from, say, your finger, you produce a headless replica of yourself, a mutant twin, arguably lifeless, that becomes your own personal, precisely tissue-matched organ farm."
This sums up the argument against pursuing this - that we would be "playing god". I would argue that it's no more playing god than creating antibiotics is.
Furthermore, the quotation marks around "alive" are not ominous - they are there because the meat is just meat. It is not "alive" in the colloquial sense - there is no consciousness, no mind. There is no "soul", whatever that is. All it is is cloned meat.
I can see why the imagery of a body in a vat, growing organs waited to be supplanted into humans could strike someone as dark, or even foreboding, but I can not see a moral argument against it - at least not one that holds any weight.
As far as for what the intended argument is (in all likelihood) - that this will lead to immortality OH NOES, I don't see a problem with that. I'm willing to bet that most people will willingly choose to die after a while, and am further willing to bet that this won't grant immortality anyhow. Overpopulation? We're already overpopulated, and have been needing to look towards space colonization for a decade or so (at least) now. Humanity has a whole host of problems ahead of it, and although it could be argued that this cloning stuff may not be the best thing to focus on, it's far from humanities primary focus - and I would view the ability as a net positive, not negative.
I don't see this guy railing against any of the other methods that humans use to fight death.