  Another way in which the use of reprogenetic technologies to select or edit embryos can contribute to social injustices is related not to access but to the kinds of values that are likely to guide parental choices. Critics highlight the troubling aggregate effect of individual choices, particularly when they are often ill-informed or relatively biased (de Melo Martin 2004; Goering 2000). They call attention to the deeply entrenched social injustices that pervade many societies, and that would typically inform individual free choices. Tremain (2006) discusses this effect in relation to disability. Russell (2010) argues that taking race to be a morally neutral feature (as Harris does) is only a “veiled attempt” to distinguish contemporary from historical eugenics practices. Perhaps race should be morally neutral, but it is not commonly treated as such, and opening up “choice” for people who harbor explicit or implicit biases related to race allows for those biases to shape the next generation. Oliver (2010) likewise highlights the trick of labeling gender a morally neutral category in a world filled with sexism, and also rightly emphasizes the levels of surveillance and control over women that are likely to follow the implementation of liberal eugenics. The unintended negative effects on pregnant women of increased attention to prenatal testing and surveillance of pregnancy generally are explored in Katz Rothman (1986), Rapp (1999), and Kukla (2008), but tend to be ignored by liberal eugenics advocates (Oliver 2010; de Melo-Martin 2017). (See also the entry on   pregnancy, birth and medicine).