In the case of spermicide, the spermatozoa are deprived of their future by being killed. Due to the destruction of sperm, the egg will remain unfertilized and will not be able to have a future itself. Preventing fertilization deprives the egg of a future, using this logic one can say that abstinence also deprives the eggs of a potential future. I don't think abstinence should be placed in the same moral category as the murder of a human adult, an idea I think most people will agree with. For option 3, I argue that it is wrong to believe that too many futures will be lost since sperm and eggs will have the same future when they join. Both will develop into a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and eventually a human (“Fetal Development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.”). Finally, for option 4, I disagree the most with Marquis' argument. Marquis assumes that for something to be deprived of a future, we must be able to identify it directly. When it comes to contraception, we cannot accurately identify which sperm will combine with the egg and therefore we cannot say which pair of sperm and egg will be deprived of a future. This is a weak argument because the reasoning is flawed. Using a thought experiment, let's say there is a theoretical button that, when pressed, will grant you $1,000,000. However, someone will die. There are billions of people in the world, so there are