  Constraints on parental reproductive decisions about what traits to choose can also be seen as conflicting with reproductive freedom and parental autonomy. For instance, Green (2007) rejects the “right to an open future” language in part because he thinks parents must be allowed to do things that are more for their own interests than for the sake of their children, even when doing so affects how the children develop. Following William Ruddick (2007), he thinks of parents as both guardians and gardeners – protecting their children so that they can grow as they will, but also shaping how they grow in line with the parents’ hopes. Because he thinks “parental love almost always prevails” (Green, 2007: 114) – when we are faced with an actual child of ours, we will (typically) love the child, regardless of the child’s traits – he finds it morally acceptable that parents might want to choose traits for their children that do not strictly speaking preserve an open future. If parents want a child with a good shot at an athletic career, for instance, why not allow them to engineer for athleticism or great vision? Doing so might narrow other life opportunities, but not to the extent that the child couldn’t choose how her life goes. Her future would still be open enough. Green emphasizes parental reproductive autonomy, and the continuum between shaping the future possibilities for our existing children through parental values, education, religion, and more, and doing so through genetic interventions. His central recommendation is that genetic interventions should be aimed at what is reasonably in the child’s best interests (2007: 216), recognizing that the parents’ own interests are also relevant. By “reasonably” he means that it is not enough for parents to think that something is in their child’s best interests; their judgment must accord with that of most other informed members of society (2007: 216). Once that condition is satisfied, parents would be permitted to choose, according to their own tastes and preferences, within a wide range of options of relatively “all-purpose” traits (2007: 218). Just who the “informed” members of society are, is of course, a matter of some contention (for discussion, see Hayry 2010).