Abortion should be Illegal

Gist:
While I technically agree with con, pro better supports his case.

1. Murder
Clear logic that abortion prevents a life from coming into existence, pre-killing it so to speak. For this pro builds a syllogism of the same result as a murder (outlining that murder is a crime was not needed, but indeed took place).
To challenge this, con argues that the fetus is not currently “considered living” until born.
Pro strengthens his point with a coma analogy, to which con’s standard might not consider said victim to be living.

2. Sex is strictly for procreation
Pro insists “they should be ready to be having children, as that's what sex is meant for.” Then immediately stabbed himself in the foot by bringing up rape in the same paragraph, while insisting the same rules for the same reasons should be applied.
Con counters the rape angle with PTSD but leaves the greater point untouched.

3. Miscarriage
Con argues pro’s standard would reclassify miscarriages to suicide… No, just no.

4. Prison
Con argues it would be wrong to put women (including teenagers) in prison with cold blooded murderers. This immediately did not take off, since pro’s argument is they already are.
A better part of this was the capacity problem. As they would equal nearly a quarter of the current prison population (or a fifth of the new population), causing the need for more facilities to be built which con implies to be infeasible. … I should favor this one more, as it’s literally an attack angle I suggest on proposal debates (“If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.9a7ds54fkkcp), but it feels disconnected somehow; probably to do with not actually defending the women who would be classified as first degree murderers, who if guilty to that level would deserve prison more than all but the most heinous of violent criminals.
Pro ends this one on a bit of a weak note, saying he would want it on their criminal record as murder, but not have it be punished as murder. The resolution calls for illegal, so the precise level of punishment is a side issue.

5. covid-19 and the death penalty
Well that came out of left field… We should not have a death penalty because the population is decreasing… I see where it’s trying to connect, but I don’t buy it.

6. ejaculation
Con introduces the notion that maybe male masturbation should also be reclassed as murder. Well technically the link could be made to condom use (or even abstinence) via denied opportunities at life, this angle doesn’t line up to the arguments.
Pro needlessly defends with a weird nuclear reactor analogy (if ever using this one again, please at least make the egg the power plant, as it’s the one that does most of the work).

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.
I’m very much pro-choice, but pro takes the debate. Pro showed harm from abortion, and while his proposal had the flaw exposed of further victimizing those unwilling to have sex, it’s common knowledge that is a tiny minority of cases (it could have been turned into a strong point, but was not in this debate…).

Sources:
Only one side used any, but they were not well integrated and did not bolster the points related to them enough to influence the argument (I can take basic numbers at face value; when I have no reason to open any of the links, it’s probably going to remain tied).

S&G:
No penalty here (minor things, but nothing obtuse). I do however suggest breaking things apart into more paragraphs, with clear section headings.