Marquis’ argument is strongly driven by his belief that killing someone deprives them of a valuable future. It prevents the person from experiencing activities in life that they’ve never had the opportunity to experience. But one can argue that those experiences are never guaranteed and that the value in their future could possibly never be achieved. In terms of an abortion, if a terrible future is just as likely as a valuable one, would the abortion still be immoral? A woman might want to abort the child because she knows that the future could be terrible for the child. Aborting the child would not be as bad as Marquis makes it seem. This objection does succeed in the fact that an arduous future is just as likely as a valuable future. I believe an abortion is still immoral because it is taking that child’s life, but this objection succeeds in countering Marquis’ main argument. A child that is born into a life where he/she faces extreme, dangerous experiences, or even early death can be deemed worse than the mother deciding to have an abortion while the child was a