There is a rational basis to deny fertile, young women employment

IntroductionI am happy to have found a willing opponent of this debate and appreciate, Wrichcirw, for his apt response. There are some things we will very much need to clear up, however. CON seems to misunderstand my use of the two legal cases in my formal preamble. I never stated, nor I think inferred, that these cases were archetypes of my argument at large. Instead, I see these as archetypes of the sort rational basis I intend to employ, insofar as these cases asserted that “a rational basis for…policy” is sufficient for denying employment to large, categorized groups of people. I think that our readers are sufficiently intelligent to know my meaning in this regard, and hope CON will cease in trying to surmount this man of straw he has built in place of my argument.Another issue that very much needs addressed, is CON’s very weird absolutist approach to my argument at large. If it had at least some ground upon which to purchase a modicum of strength, it would not seem so petty. But it just plain does not. My claim is neither absolute nor specific, it is a general claim. Thus, there are specific cases where the rationale to deny young, fertile women employment does not obtain or supersede other grounds. We all can with ease name a few (eg. Strip clubs). Moreover, this general assertion does not entail its application, which my opponent seems to misunderstand. While a rational basis may exist for YFF exclusion, it may not be sufficient to compel an employer to deny employment--the existence of a rational basis notwithstanding. With this said, and pray understood, let me move to his arguments.N1) Further define to defeatMost of this I cleared up in my introduction. However, here CON intends to define my claim more robustly and then claim that it no longer comports with the resolution. I mean, if my argument only stated “There is a rational basis to deny employment to young, fertile women who pursue pregnancy and child rearing,” then they would have some merit. Or so were told. This is a weird rebuttal, though not uncommon in the face of an argument one cannot defeat, and should be disregarded without rebuttal, though I will of course address it anyway. What my opponent fails to grasp is that my argument DOES apply to 100% of YFF’s. The argument does NOT state that all YFF’s will get pregnant, it only concludes that there is a very HIGH chance that a YFF will get pregnant. If we exclude the 10.9%[1] of women with impaired fecundity from the 19%, we have 8.1% of women who, though fertile, remain childless. Thus, if we update my numbers to the stronger claim that there is an 89.1% chance that a YFF will get pregnant sometime during the duration of her employment, we can rightly understand that an employer may not want to assume that risk, irrespective of whether or not the particular female(s) in question will be among the 8.1% who do not.But then my opponent will modify his retort to say, “But 25 million women will thus be denied employment for no justifiable reason.” But this is again totally false. The reason is that they have a high probability of becoming pregnant, irrespective if it turns out that they do not. Certainly my opponent does not think that, in the case of Robert Jordan in my first round, that all people with an IQ greater than 115 would “get bored with police work.” No, instead the court recognized that “those who scored too high could get bored…” (Emphasis mine) You’ll notice that even the Supreme Court recognized that it was rational do deny employment where menial labor was involved to people with higher IQ because the probability was higher that they would leave. This demonstrates that a rational basis exists so long as the risk shared by a group is disproportionate and real, not necessarily absolute.N2) To Grasp at StrawsI am not making a claim that the existence of a rational basis to deny YFF means that YFF will be denied employment all the time. Historically, there was always about 30% of women who worked, despite the fact that employers were able to discriminate at their leisure without legal recourse (against women at least). Moreover, there may be some OTHER rational basis for an employer that supersedes the high likelihood of temporary disability, long absences and turnover. CON simply tried to make my claim some weird absolute one; this is completely unwarranted. I did not say there is a rational basis to ALWAYS deny YFF. I did not say there is a rational basis to deny ALL YFF, either. My claim was general, modest and totally exempt from the weird semantic gymnastics he wishes to impose.N3) General EmploymentIt’s not clear what my opponent wishes to prove here. I already admitted that there are plenty of cases where the rational bases presented here to deny YFF employment could be superseded by other factors (the wet nurse example). However, since the majority of employers have real concern about job turnover and the consumers of their services, my argument could not apply in a more general way than it already does.CorrelationIt’s too bad that my opponent merely excused this argument with customary hand waving. Correlation is not causation as the quip goes. This is true enough, but too oft abused by those who do not want to look seriously at the statistics at hand. As demonstrated, the rise of women in the workforce strongly correlates with lower birthrates. Other factors apply, certainly, but let’s look at the important ones:1. Career women cheat more frequently.[2]2. Career women divorce more often.[3]3. Career women have fewer kids.[4]4. Children of working mothers are 23% less likely to pass college entrance exams.[5]5. Children of working mothers are 29% more likely to be unemployed.[6]6. Women at home cheat less frequently.[7]7. Women at home divorce less often.[8]8. Women at home have more kids.[9]How could it be said that there is no evident link to YFF in the workforce…? If you do not see how more divorce and birthing fewer kids who are unemployed more frequently negatively impacts future consumers, then the problem is not any wanting clarity in my argument. Furthermore, to blame fewer births on a weak economy is balderdash. The birth rates started to fall after 1960, when women’s suffrage movements were at their pinnacle. Through the 60’s, 70’s 80’s and even 90’s the US has had its economic boons and lulls, but the birthrate still steadily declined. Moreover, as this graph clearly shows, the romantic opportunities of men are FAR more frequent because both men and women are working longer hours. ConclusionBoth my arguments stand uninhibited and as strong as ever. There is a rational basis to deny YFF employment for at least two reasons. (1) There is a high risk of temporary disability, long absence and turnover. There are also (2) good reasons to avoid hiring YFF because doing so decreases and negatively effects future consumers of the goods and services that employers supply. I hope my opponent will move past this absolutist parody and confront these arguments truly.[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] http://papers.ssrn.com...[4] http://www.census.gov...[5] http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl...[6] IBID[7] IBID[8] http://papers.ssrn.com...[9]http://www.census.gov...