So no, the same reasoning doesn't apply, and certainly not in the way you're trying to imply.
It does apply, on both counts. You are simply drawing an arbitrary line and saying "here
is where potential counts." If there is a logic or rationale behind it, you've not laid it out or elaborated.
When virtually all sperm cells are inevitably fated to die, trying to use their 'potential' as justification to 'protect' them fails miserably. The same doesn't apply to egg cells, of course,
Of course? Why of course? Why the double standard? Why does that apply to sperm but not egg? Nor to fertilized egg? You've given no argument, only a proclamation. Ipse dixit, as Az said.
Taking the 'potential' argument to extremes might work with someone who's never really thought about it. I'll give you that much, at least. But to someone who's seriously considered it and its ramifications, it's simply not effective as an argument, because they've probably already accounted for the points you're trying to bring up, and if they haven't, they have enough of a framework to fit them into.
None of this is an actual counter-argument. It is so much hand waving, and nothing else.