If of childbearing age, women should be sterilized before assuming the office of POTUS

I do not agree that this is a controversial issue. I thank opponent for his efforts. I will close with a summary of my case. The law forbids discrimination on basis of sex. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 clearly makes it illegal to discriminate "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. "My opponent would have this legislation reversed, for the sole purpose of allowing sterilization of the POTUS. The highest office in America sets an example. What a terrible civil rights example to set of reversing a law for the purpose of discriminating against a female President. Segregated restrooms, which are a matter of ettiquette, do not expose flaws in civil rights legislation. My opponent is confused as to what discrimination is. Neither women nor men are discriminated against in the case of restrooms: Facilities are provided for each, and they have equal opportunity to relieve themselves. Even IF restrooms were a case of discrimination, it would not mean that all other discrimination were negated! Civil rights are not moot because toilets are segregated by gender. My opponent has a ridiculous and unfortunate view of civil rights, which I can only hope to correct. To have a child is not a criminal act, although my confused opponent compares it to one. Since my opponent claims the issue is "readiness", whether the POTUS is voluntarily incapacitated or not is irrelevant. All that matters is the outcome, not the intention. So, the resolution is unworkable: If pregnancy, then other issues that could incapacitate a President. You could just as well argue that a POTUS with a history of heart disease in his family is endangering national security. Or a candidate that is particularly old. The selection of a President could become highly discriminatory. Also, you cannot deny an unsterilized woman the office of POTUS on a hypothetical. Hypothetically, a male POTUS may get testicular cancer. Should we then pre-empt the possibility by insisting only on eunuchs in the White House? The electorate has a right to choose the candidate they see fit, and are fully capable of assessing the capabilities and readiness of a woman of childbearing age for office. In the unlikely event that a female POTUS actually does get pregnant and and wishes to be the primary care giver, ie raise children, then resignation is a less drastic option than sterilization. I think I should get the conduct points for this debate because my opponent actually goes as far as to quote mine me on this! Another option is that the Vice President could do the job the Vice President is designated to do and manage the ship while the mother is convalescing. The battle to make employment truly meritocratic, through civil rights, is an ongoing one and has been long and hard fought. To affirm the resolution would be to take a backwards step. My opponent has already conceded the debate. "If outright sterilization is an issue, then a pledge signed under oath to forego childbearing while in office would accomplish the same purpose. " Sterilize:to destroy the ability of (a person or animal) to reproduce by removing the sex organs or inhibiting their functions. . http://dictionary.reference.com...A POTUS who signs a pledge has not had the ability to reproduce destroyed; the functions of their sex organs have not been inhibited even temporarily, let alone permanently. They are not incapable of reproduction, they have simply pledged not to reproduce. Thank you to the voters for reading this debate.