Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty

My opponent ended their first iteration of their argument stating "Taking all of these important factors into consideration, it is easy to understand the fact that killing babies in the womb should be considered the most serious of all violent crimes. Therefore the killing of babies in their mothers' wombs should definitely draw the harshest sentence, because of the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the extreme youth of the victim, the extreme innocence of the victim, and the extreme seriousness of the crime WHICH IS THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE ." Please note the absence of any qualifiers limiting who the criminal is or the crime being committed to only a select few cases and repeatedly states that the mother is guilty of a malicious crime after an abortion and should therefore be subjected to the death penalty, which makes the argument an absolute. Also note the use of the wordage, "seriousness of the crime", and the following qualifier "which is the taking of human life," as further examples to qualify the idea behind my following statement presented in the first round of arguing. Me: "If the mere occurrence of death constitutes the death penalty because of the loss of life involved." My Opponent: I didn't make that statement either. Almost all you have done so far is compile a long list of straw man logical fallacies and argue against your own straw men: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP." So you very clearly state that the seriousness of the crime is the loss of human life. Not some loss, not the loss of a babies life, you very CLEARLY STATE THAT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS CRIME IS THE LOSS OF ANY HUMAN LIFE I'd like to hear how direct quoting you is constitutes a straw man argument. (Note to the Debater: Anyone can pick up an English A1 book at their local community college and spout nonsense from some random page in an attempt to add credibility to their argument, shouting "STRAW MAN" because your own argument lacks substance isn't a valid argument and wastes your time, my time, and anyone who hoped to actually see an informed exchange of opinions here.) So, now let's get to meat of your second argument attempting to establish abortions as inherently malicious in nature. You state, "The intent to kill an innocent baby by tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements is most definitely malicious." First, that's a bit graphic, also slightly tongue-in-cheek; this is what is known as an "appeal to emotion" and laughingly enough is a logical fallacy. There is more than one way to induce an abortion depending on how far along the pregnancy is, and involves the presence of a doctor to administer the procedure. So then are you suggesting that the doctor should also be put to death for carrying out the procedure? (I know you're going to cry straw man again, but the attempt here is to establish the illogical conclusion of your argument.) Lastly, I don't think you know how these debates work. You don't actually decide if you won or not. It"s up to those who read the arguments and then decide who presented their ideas in the clearest context establishing their side of the argument. I guess you can tell yourself you won at any point, but then we have to ask what the point of you being on the site is. Clearly not to exchange ideas or add anything meaningful to any ongoing topic because you"re too busy shouting, "I WIN, I WIN, I WIN THE MATCH!!! STRAW MAN STRAW MAN! MOM LOOK I WON AGAIN." We can continue the debate, if you have anything more meaningful to add, but if not than I guess sure "You win" uhm Congrats?