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

1) My opponent stated that he or she "will leave it to the voters as to whether [PRO] is attempting to equivocate on the meaning of "sterilization"." There is no equivocation. I made it clear in round two that my statement amounted to a de facto sterilization. I made it clear how sterilization was defined, and how my statements are valid given the argument at hand. The purpose of sterilization is to prevent a readiness issue that would come about due to child bearing. I have been exceptionally clear in this regard. A pledge forbidding child bearing accomplishes this purpose, especially if the price of breaking such a pledge is a forced resignation. My opponent sought an easy way out due to his inability to address my arguments in round #2, and it backfired on him. 2) My opponent stated that "It is inconceivable that the POTUS would voluntarily become pregnant with the intention of raising children during her term of office." It is also inconceivable that a man murder his brother, or that someone would go into a crowded theater and indiscriminately kill moviegoers after turning his own room into a gigantic IED. We have laws that seek to prevent this kind of behavior from occurring. Personally, I believe it it less inconceivable that someone of childbearing age would experience an unexpected pregnancy. In the office of the POTUS, if such a pregnancy resulted in a child birth, the time lost due to recovering from such a VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION would be unacceptable due to national security concerns. The ramifications to national security would be far more than if a man murdered his brother, or if another Aurora theater incident occurred. Such events simply cannot be allowed to occur on a voluntary basis, hence my advocating for the PRO position in this argument, to include potential legislation to this effect. 2) My opponent stated that "The argument that discrimination in the workplace is justified by toilet ettiquette is a novel one. " Apparently he or she thinks that public restrooms are all same sex restrooms, that there are no men's restrooms, or no women's restrooms. Apparently he or she is unaware of this kind of segregation based on gender/sex, apparently he or she is unaware what a PUBLIC restroom is. I move we "close the lid and flush" this argument and move on, until my opponent discovers a public restroom in his life journeys. 3) My opponent quoted me thus: "the legality of the issue is not relevant to the argument". He then responded that "I agree in as far as my opponent has already conceded the debate. If they had not done so, I submit they would need to find a reason why a civil rights law should be wiped off the books." My opponent has taken my argument completely out of context here. The legality of whether or not the electorate can vote for someone under 35 years of age or over 35 years of age is as significant as to the legality whether or not the electorate can vote a pregnant woman into office. The fact is that the law discriminates here based on age, and again it is a welcome discrimination. This is why "the legality of the issue is not relevant to the argument", as one can raise the unconstitutionality of such a provision on the basis of age discrimination, yet no one has. One can also raise the constitutionality of a provision forbidding child bearing in the Oval Office citing readiness issues, yet no one has. This is not a civil rights issue but a readiness issue. The opponent continually attempts to frame the discussion in a civil rights point of view, when I have already refuted his arguments to this point, to which he or she offers no counterargument. The issue at hand is readiness. A woman who cannot bear a child is the same as a man who cannot bear a child. There is no gender discrimination in this statement. 4) My opponent states that I presumed "that POTUS would take six weeks maternity leave." Again, this is factually incorrect, I said that "The real discussion is in short term disabilities resulting from pregnancy" during which [the [woman is] UNABLE to do [her] job due to illness, injury, or childbirth." My opponent offers no counterpoint to this statement, he merely misquotes me and then states that "This assumption is unwarranted." This statement is so weak it deserves no counterargument. My point about readiness issues stemming from a prolonged VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION stemming from "short term disabilities resulting from pregnancy" stands as it is until my opponent attempts an earnest rebuttal. 5) Regarding the issue of POTUS resignation, my opponent states that "[PRO] wishes to make extreme provisions in case the President acts unrealistically unreasonably." CON seems to be unaware that pregnancy and child birthing are indeed very realistic possibilities for a woman of child-bearing age. That CON agrees that a proper course of action for a pregnant woman in the White House is to offer her resignation is a very strong advocacy that he concede his argument and proclaim me the winner: CON: "Presidents can resign. This would be a less drastic, more sensible resolution to a POTUS becoming pregnant..." Granted, my opponent has not spent much time thinking out a cohesive counterargument against my round #2 statements. My opponent's argument still seems to lie in the supposition that I have conceded this debate, which I have not. I find it unfortunate that my opponent spends more time attempting to win a debate based on a flawed interpretation of a technicality than actually arguing the points in earnest. I sincerely hope CON spends a bit more time fleshing out a cohesive counterargument to what I presented in round #2.