Consider Case 1, from chapter 8 in the textbook (Vaughn, 456): There are a number of options concerning what to do with frozen embryos, created via IVF. For example, they could be kept frozen indefinitely for later implantation, though few embryos survive the thawing/implant process. Alternatively, they could be donated to labs and used for research. Some might see this as creating a human organism merely for research purposes. Lastly, unused embryos can simply be disposed of. Which option do you think is the most morally correct/justifiable? According to what moral standard/theory?

Consider Case 2, from chapter 9 in the textbook (Vaughn, 580-581): The couple wants to raise a child that is deaf, like them. To do this, they deliberately create an embryo that will be deaf. In such cases, has the child and its future been harmed? If deafness is not a harm, what about couples with other conditions who want to have children like them (i.e. couples with dwarfism or Down’s syndrome)? What genetic predispositions constitute harm to a child, such that it would be wrong to allow a child to be born that way 

1. this is what ive written so far …. IVF has been a great discovery allowing infertile couples to have children of their own. Left over embryos is a topic of discussion with questions arising as to what should be done with the left over embryos. Utilitarians would argue that freezing embryos for future use is morally acceptable, since the advantages would outweigh the harms. These embryos can be used to benefit couples suffering from infertility. Disposing of the embryos would have no benefit for the unborn child nor anyone. These embryos should be frozen for future use by the couple or other couples. “Freezing a woman’s leftover embryos gives her the option of using them in future IVF cycles rather than going through another arduous (and expensive) round of ovarian stimulation and egg retrievel.) (Vaughn, 443)