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

(PRO's quotations in quoted italics.)(sources continued from round #2)([N1 - N3], and [CC1 - CC4] refer to my round #2 arguments)Key ArgumentsI will first summarize uncontested points and then proffer a key argument:K1) PRO does not contest the following:- Over 29 million women would be unjustly denied employment due to PRO's resolution.- Criminals would have a better chance at employment than YFFs; the latter would be categorically denied.- Employers are currently forced to bear unreasonable costs due to problems stemming from PREGNANCY, not from being YFF.- PRO has dropped ALL of [CC1 - CC4], and has instead replaced them with 8 new points, which I will label CC11 - CC18.K2) PRO claims that "While a rational basis may exist for YFF exclusion, it may not be sufficient to compel an employer to deny employment..." This is false. It logically follows that PRO's resolution will NECESSARILY deny YFFs employment.If per PRO's resolution: "There is a rational basis to deny YFFs employment," then the contrapositive (http://en.wikipedia.org...) also holds: "To NOT deny YFFs employment has NO RATIONAL BASIS," meaning that if PRO's resolution is valid, then no one in their right mind would hire a YFF. This is PRO's resolution, not mine, and I maintain that it is absolutely absurd. PRO has simply not thought the resolution through.This logic is evident in Robert Jordan's case, who was NECESSARILY denied employment due to NYPD policy stemming from "a rational basis". If you accept the NYPD's position on this matter (and I do not), then to change the policy would not be rational.If boredom was "a rational basis" for denying employment, then 71% of the American workforce would be denied employment [9]. The NYPD policy is absurd, applies only to New York, and is not representative of America. Again, PRO's resolution is novel and controversial, because the situation is novel and controversial - for the first time in human history women are necessarily granted equal employment. I think there are some warranted changes that can be made to civil rights legislation on this matter, but denying women employment is simply too extreme a solution. It has no historical basis in all of human history and is absolutely draconian, beyond misogynistic, and completely irrational.RebuttalCorrelation is STILL NOT CausationR1) PRO admits that correlation is not causation, yet still brings up a bevy of new correlations with questionable evidence. I will utilize the notation [PRO1], [PRO2], etc, to reference PRO's round #3 sources.Here is PRO's new list:CC11. Career women cheat more frequently.[PRO2]CC12. Career women divorce more often.[PRO3]CC13. Career women have fewer kids.[PRO4]CC14. Children of working mothers are 23% less likely to pass college entrance exams.[PRO5]CC15. Children of working mothers are 29% more likely to be unemployed. [PRO5]CC16 - CC18. [Redundant arguments and sources - same as CC11 - CC13](I noted in the comments section that there are issues with some of [PRO2 - PRO9] which PRO subsequently addressed - I will do a preliminary rebuttal and reserve the right to contest the rest next round).Here are some problems with this new list:CC11. [PRO2] is an abstract that does not corroborate this point. The true source of infidelity and promiscuity is the baby boomer/Free Love mentality [CC3], [10], not working YFFs.CC12. [PRO3] also does not corroborate PRO's claim. The abstract states that increasing women's work weeks "raises the probability of divorce by two tenths of one percentage point." This correlation is statistically IMMATERIAL.[PRO3] also explains this immaterial correlation: "A worker in a bad marriage might clearly choose to work more hours as a way to avoid ones spouse. Also, a worker anticipating a divorce might chose to work more hours to provide financial security in the event of a divorce."...i.e., work does not cause divorce...rather divorce causes work. PRO also argues that "the romantic opportunities of men are FAR more frequent because both men and women are working longer hours." PRO's solution to this problem is to rob women of opportunity and to lock them in the house like a slave. Ridiculous. Keep in mind that marital rape was legal in the US as late as 1993 [11]. We do not need to regress to that era. Rather, MARRIED MEN simply need to keep their vows and refrain from screwing everything they see.There is no basis for PRO's CC12. Divorce stems from unhappy couples, not because YFFs are working.CC13. [PRO4] is about delaying childbirth due to a successful career, and how successful moms have fewer children. To put this matter in perspective, more kids does not equate to better kids; welfare moms have 3 times the birth rate as the rest of the population [12].PRO also states that "to blame fewer births on a weak economy is balderdash." I agree, but I never made this point - this is a strawman. Refer to [CC1] - Fewer births are due to the skyrocketing costs of child care, especially education, not YFFs in the workforce.CC14, CC15. [PRO5] is the wrong source. Needs correction. ---Some other related points: R2) PRO's chart shows that problems with longer work hours equally apply to both men AND women. His point violates my [N1]; work hours are not unique to YFFs and are thus irrelevant to the resolution.R3) Employment gives YFFs incentive to educate themselves and become productive, leading to smarter, stronger, and better planned families. [CC1], [CC3], and CC13 corroborate this assertion.A Rational Solution to PREGNANCYR4) Although I maintain that PRO's arguments about pregnancy do not uphold the resolution, I will address them anyway. Yes, pregnancy presents a risk to an employer's operations, a risk unique to hiring women. How do employers handle risk? Through insurance. I propose that we foster a new PRIVATE industry, namely pregnancy insurance. Any employer that hires a YFF could buy insurance to protect from the event that the YFF gets pregnant and bears a child while employed. The cost of this insurance would be paid by the employer and deducted from the YFF's paycheck, thereby relieving the employer from the burden of a YFF's pregnancy. All of this can be made clear on a worker's W-2. Before you cry "WAGE DISCRIMINATION", wait, there's more! I recognize that it's in society's best interests to get women pregnant and bearing children, and it is rather unfair to force women to bear all of the burden. Therefore, I would advocate for a "women's work tax credit" for women who work - they would get back the income they lost due to the employer's insurance deduction and thereby suffer no income loss due to their gender.This makes everyone happy - the employer is free from business risk. Women receive the same income as men. A new insurance industry would cater to employers hiring women. Taxes collected to fund the tax credit would be redistributive, but fair and minimal.This plan allows for women to work while giving employers the chance to hire a woman without suffering for it. My solution does NOT unfairly deny employment to 29 million women across America.Also note that if a woman has two kids while she is 18-44 years old, she takes unpaid maternity leave for 6 months of employment out of 26 years, or 6 months out of 312 months. This is simply not a big problem. The rational solution to PREGNANCY is to account for PREGNANCY, not to deny employment based upon gender.ConclusionWORK SUCKS (video) - still, we live in a free country. Denying employment to anyone worthy is a step backwards.http://www.youtube.com...(no room)[9] http://www.forbes.com...[10] http://www.bloomberg.com...[11] http://womensenews.org...[12] http://www.census.gov...(pg 15)