  Indeed, some liberal eugenics proponents, aware of this concern, are willing to defend restrictions on parental reproductive freedom (Agar 2004). But here again, such restrictions are proposed in the name of ensuring a social good. Thus advocates of liberal eugenics face a dilemma: if parents should be the ones determining the future well-being of their children, then they will likely choose in ways that a) some liberals find counter-intuitive, i.e., choosing a Deaf child, and b) may, through market pressures and social norms, lead to homogeneity from “tyranny of the majority” (Sparrow 2011b: 515). If, on the other hand, parents should not have this leeway, if some restrictions prevent them from choosing in certain ways, then reproductive decisions about improving our offspring fall in the hands of the state. While, as mentioned earlier, most advocates of liberal eugenics express concern about the problem of aggregate effects of individual choices, they often end up seeming to dismiss them (Green 2007), presuming that education or other modes of dealing with the problems will be sufficient (Savulescu 2001), or just adding a qualification about the need to avoid reinforcing unjust social norms (Agar 2004), without fully exploring the difficulty of doing so.