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

I also want to add that there is a rational basis for both debaters being men, as lawyers typically represent their clients so that undue bias does not affect the client's ability to argue a matter. I cannot say the same for my opponent's arguments - I do not see a rational basis for them. While on the surface they may look clean and rational, I will prove that this simply is not the case. PRO's statements in quoted italics. ArgumentsWhat this debate is not about:N1) This debate is not about any other characteristic or groups of characteristics other than being young, fertile, and female (which I will now abbreviate as YFF). PRO brings up two legal cases where the court recognizes a rational basis to deny employment based on certain characteristics, but those characteristics are irrelevant to the resolution. Neither Robert Jordan (the intelligent cop-aspirant) nor Melissa Nelson (the attractive dental assistant) are YFF - Jordan is a male, and Nelson is 33 years old, and is thus not young. More importantly, Nelson was fired because she was "too attractive" [1], which is a separate characteristic from being YFF - PRO's source is clear that her gender had nothing to do with it; in fact, the dentist hired a (hopefully less attractive) woman to replace her. While the cases are certainly interesting and somewhat bizarre, neither uphold the resolution to any degree - it would be irrational to think so. Much of PRO's latter arguments deal with the consequences of pregnancy and child-birthing/rearing. While this is indeed an unique situation that applies almost solely to YFFs, it is by no means a necessary aspect of being YFF. What PRO is differentiating here is not between YFFs and the population, but between PREGNANT and CHILD-BEARING people and the population. PRO himself mentions that "19% of women are childless at menopause" - this means that if we enact PRO's resolution, and given a 50/50 split between men and women amongst 315 million Americans [2], there would be at least 29 million Americans alive today that are denied employment for no justifiable reason. This is neither rational nor appropriate. This renders PRO's arguments involving job turnover due to specifically pregnancy invalid for this debate. Had PRO made a resolution to the effect of "There is a rational basis to deny employment to YFFs who pursue pregnancy and child rearing" then and only then would his arguments apply. However, that is not the resolution we are debating. PRO needs to address the 19% along with the 81% to achieve all 100% of YFFs to uphold the resolution. N2) This debate is not about relative levels of discrimination - it is about absolute levels of discrimination. We are not talking about "some sort of transcendent and trumping egalitarian ideal" to rectify wage discrimination. .. we are talking about not even giving a YFF a chance to prove her worth, i. e. to deny employment. This flies in the face of most of human history, as even YFFs in pre-industrial peasant huts engaged in entrepreneurial activity through marketable handicrafts like sowing and knitting while the man dealt with more physically demanding tasks like plowing the field and chopping trees for lumber. Denying YFFs employment would deny them such activities as well, which is simply not supported by historical record even in the most blatantly misogynistic societies. [3]This is what caused me to accept the debate. I was initially convinced along with most of the commenters that burden of proof (BoP) for this debate was inordinately low for PRO, as he only needed to prove one rational basis, but then I focused upon the aspect of denying employment. Denying employment involves the situation where even if there are no qualified applicants, i. e. where a YFF would be the only applicant being considered for a job, that applicant would be denied solely because she was YFF. This is an inordinately difficult resolution to prove since even criminals are given a chance at employment; this goes well beyond the typical arguments revolving around time taken off work to take care of the kids leading to discriminatory wage practices. Such a situation does not warrant an outright denial of employment, which is extreme. Rationality would dictate that we enact reasonable and measured responses for justifiable discriminatory practices, and not succumb to absolutist black-and-white sentiments that are anything but rational. N3) This debate is not about specific forms of employment, but about general employment. I could easily make the argument that "There is no rational basis to deny YFFs employment as a wet nurse," because only YFFs can perform the task. However, this IMHO does not fulfill BoP as it is too specific and does not address the workforce as a whole. Therefore, whatever PRO argues must conform to the vast majority of the forms of employment in the marketplace and to all YFFs as a group. Example: Robert Jordan's case would not apply here, as not all jobs are as ostensibly boring and un-engaging as law enforcement. Correlation is not CausationPRO's final bevy of statistics comprise a surprisingly weak argument - that YYFs in the workforce somehow "[Have] a Negative Effect on Consumption". I do not dispute his statistics, but dispute how he applies them. CC1) An increase of YFFs in the workforce does not cause lower birth rates in the population. Other factors are responsible, like the escalating costs of properly educating a child and other standard of living issues involving child-rearing [4]. CC2) An increase of YFFs in the workforce does not cause men to be over-worked and thus adulterous. This doesn't even make sense. .. it should cause men to have to forfeit hours in order to make more hours available to women. It should (and does) result in a reduced work week for everyone, which should allow for men to devote more time to their marriage - in 1890, the work week was 60 hours [5]; today, it is 33 hours [6]. CC3) An increase of YFFs in the workforce does not cause higher divorce rates, especially if men are spending more time on their marriage through reduced work hours. Wage reductions would be ameliorated by having 2 bread-earners as opposed to one, and would lead to an overall more productive and healthy family unit. High divorce rates are much more indicative of societal and moral degradation, as evident through the Free Love movement [7] and websites like Ashley Madison [8], which ferments, advertises, and promotes adultery, was founded by a man, and has no evident link to YFFs in the workforce. CC4) An increase of YFFs in the workforce does not exacerbate the US debt crisis; I cannot even figure out how PRO substantiates this. ConclusionPRO is debating a rather novel and controversial resolution, but it is novel and controversial because it is so indefensible. .. no one in their right and rational mind would bring it up, let alone defend it. PRO has some tangential evidence that there is a rational basis to deny employment due to certain factors, but not due to the specific factor of being YFF. He has not upheld BoP. I agree there is room for justifiable wage discrimination and at times even outright denial of employment for various reasons, but PRO has not brought any evidence to justify this specific resolution. (out of room)[1] . http://talkingpointsmemo.com...[2] . http://www.statista.com...[3] . http://www.brooklynmuseum.org...[4] . http://money.cnn.com...[5] . http://eh.net...[6] . http://www.bsu.edu...[7] . http://www.nbcnews.com...[8] . http://japandailypress.com...