Sandel deems that parents have a responsibility to support their children’s success. He acknowledges that they mutually do and overdo this through the use of orthodontics, Ritalin and in several other modes. However, he questions if it is allowable and even venerable for parents to assist their children in these modes; why isn’t it similarly venerable for parents to employ whatever genetic technologies that may surface to improve their children’s outlook, athletic skill, aptitude or musical skill? An upcoming set of liberal eugenicists deem that eugenic actions, for instance embryo selection, are inoffensive and may be morally essential provided that the benefits and saddles are fairly disseminated all over the society. However, Sandel is not a liberal eugenicist as he thinks that eugenic parenting is offensive as it demonstrates a misinterpretation of our position in creation and baffles our responsibilities with that of God. This paper discusses the ethics behind all these issues. To begin with, cloning is ethically wrong because it infringes the right to self-sufficiency; by selecting a child’s genetic composition beforehand, parents infringe the child’s privilege to a liberal future. On the other hand, Sandel deems that cloning is fine. Although most scientists’ consent that cloning is dangerous as it can create offspring with severe deformities, Sandel asserts that technology can be enhanced to ascertain that clones are at no increased risk than physically conceived children. According to him, there is no trouble with making a child who is a hereditary twin of a single parent, or of a popular superstar. Secondly, a sportsperson with genetically improved muscles, similar to a drug-enhanced sportsperson, would have an unjust benefit over his unenhanced opponents. One problem with drugs is that they make someone to win even when he or she has put no efforts. However, Sandel argues that making effort is not the peak of sports but excellence. He further asserts that excellence is partially exhibited in the innate gifts and talents that are not determined by the sportsperson who owns them (Sandel 81). He regards this as a sore reality for democratic communities as folks like to assume that victory, in life and sports, is rather earned than innate. Sandel further asserts that muscle improvement therapy should be utilized to enhance sport performance. He also argues that it is traditionally known that some sportsmen are far gifted hereditarily than others, and hitherto we do not deem this to demoralize the justice of competitive games. From this perspective, Sandel concludes that improved genetic disparities would be no terrible than innate ones, supposing that they were harmless and made accessible to every one. Besides, the ethics of memory enhancement point to the risk of producing two categories of people; those who have to survive with their natural abilities and those who can afford enhancement technologies. The predicament here is that in case these enhancements are transmitted across age groups, the two categories may finally become types of people, the improved and the purely natural. However, concern on access disregards the ethical position of enhancement itself. The basic query here should not be how to guarantee the same access to enhancement but if we are supposed to seek it at first. Sandel deems that cognitive enhancement would span the