In the case of spermicide, sperm are deprived of the future because they are killed. Due to the death of the sperm, the egg will remain unfertilized and prevented from having a future. Prevention of fertilization deprives the egg of a future, using this logic it can be said that abstinence also deprives the egg of potential futures. I don't think abstinence should be placed in the same moral category as killing an adult human being, a thought I think most people will agree with. For option 3, I argue that it is false that too many futures will be lost since the sperm and egg will have the same future when they unite. The two will develop into a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and finally a human ("Fetal Development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia."). Finally, regarding option 4, I disagree the most with the Marquis' argument. Marchese assumes that for something to be deprived of a future, we must be able to directly identify it. When it comes to contraception, we cannot precisely identify which sperm will join the egg and therefore we cannot say which sperm and egg pair will be deprived of a future. This is a weak argument since the reasoning is flawed. Using a thought experiment, let's say there is a theoretical button that, if pressed, will grant you $1,000,000. However, someone will die as a result. There are billions of people in the world, so there