  Another worry linked to the desire for control comes from Habermas (2003) who grounds his arguments in a deontological framework. He argues that by engineering our children in very specific ways – beyond the treatment of disease – we may undermine their capacity for self-definition, their sense of being responsible for themselves (in respect to creating their own identities), and their freedom (2003: 12–13). He claims that it is not genetic engineering per se that is the problem, but rather the scope of its use as well as the attitude. In this case, the wrong attitude is one that is not attentive to likely second person consent to the changes – would the child have granted approval for the selected traits? For Habermas, what matters is the attitude of appreciating the need for the future person’s presumed consent, rather than the idea of making the change merely according to parental preferences.