  Liberal eugenics proponents recognize that the permissibility to use reprogenetic technologies for non-disease traits raises significant moral concerns. For instance, obsessively focused prospective parents might design their children in ways that are overbearing or narrowly focused on a particular goal of the parents (Kass 2003; Sandel 2007). To avoid this problem, liberal eugenics advocates propose various limits on genetic interventions for non-disease traits. There is widespread agreement that interventions should not harm the future child (by creating a life so miserable as to be not worth living, as might be the subject of a wrongful life suit). Beyond that, variations include, for instance: (1) only interventions on traits that will benefit the future children no matter what life plan they decide to pursue and that do not reinforce problematic social norms (Agar 2004), (2) only interventions that preserve a child’s right to an open future (Davis 2010), or (3) only interventions that preserve open futures and protect some central core of our human nature (Glover 2006), or (4) only interventions that rational people agree can be understood to be in the best interest of the child (Green 2007).