  Many theorists argue in favor of permitting parents to make choices about their future children’s genetic make-up. Such arguments run the gamut from a completely laissez-faire market system – or “genetic supermarket” – of the sort considered by Robert Nozick (1974: 315) to a more highly regulated system, with controls to protect the well-being of future children as well as socially valued goods (e.g., rough equality, efforts to eliminate discrimination) that might be put at risk in a completely free market environment (Buchanan et al 2000). Many also contend that there is a morally relevant difference between choices aimed at addressing diseases and those aimed at selecting or enhancing non-disease traits such as intelligence, self-confidence, height, eye color, or attractiveness. Further, while some liberal eugenics advocates contend that reproductive interventions for non-disease traits are permissible (Agar 2004, Green 2006), some argue that they are morally obligatory (Harris 2007; Savulescu 2005; Savulescu and Kahane 2009).