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

1) CON will win or lose this debate based on an ad hoc attempt to win by technical default. A pledge forbidding child bearing does indeed render an individual "incapable of reproduction", unless they want to lose their job. This is de facto sterilization.STERILE:"incapable of producing offspring; not producing offspring."http://dictionary.reference.com...The purpose of this sterilization is to ensure that readiness issues that would arise from child bearing do not interfere with the office of POTUS. The opponent has agreed on numerous occasions that such interference is cause for resignation, i.e., the intention of child bearing indeed disqualifies a candidate from seeking the office of POTUS. Rather than deal with a messy situation while a pro-life pregnant woman is in office, I propose that we prevent such an occurrence through sterilization. If a medical procedure is deemed too intrusive, than a legal one will do.2) My opponent states that "There are no laws that require a medical procedure to prevent the remote possibility a sane man may murder his brother or shoot up a cinema in the future."There are numerous laws that seek to deter murderous behavior, to include the death penalty. In this vein, my argument infers a proposal that would seek to deter disruptive behavior that would lower the readiness level of the POTUS. Are the chances that a POTUS capable of childbearing would actually bear a child high? No, such a career-driven woman more than likely would not be interested in having children while in the Oval Office. But, I would think it is much higher than the chance that "a sane man may murder his brother or shoot up a cinema in the future." Yet, we have laws for the latter, and not for the former, even though an incapacitated POTUS is much more detrimental to national security than a street felony.3. My opponent states that "[PRO] has plainly not refuted my contention that carrying out the resolution would constitute a civil rights issue. The assertion that it is a "readiness" issue does not stop it also being a civil rights issue."CON has continually ignored arguments that prove that there are deep flaws in civil rights legislation that sanction discriminatory practices, such as segregated restrooms and physical fitness standards. CON has also continually ignored the argument that "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." There are no civil rights issues here. The issue is in regards to readiness concerns stemming from a VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION. If a man could bear a child, then I would also advocate that the man remain sterile throughout his term(s) as POTUS. The disruption from child bearing is simply too much for an office like the POTUS.My opponent has yet to address any readiness issues coming from an unexpected desire from a female POTUS to birth a child while in office. Instead, he claims such a situation is preposterous and would result in a forced resignation by the female POTUS. Although he does not seek a legal solution, his argument is clear - a woman intent on bearing a child while in office is undeserving of the Presidency. In this much both of us are in agreement, and my solution is to preclude such a possibility. My opponent's solution is to force a resignation from the female POTUS.4) My opponent states that "short term disabilities resulting from pregnancy amount to no more than a few days to give birth and recover. The length of a minor illness." He offers no evidence, no citations, nothing, to prove his point. I have offered evidence from "The #1 pregnancy and parenting web and mobile destination worldwide" [1] that cites: "Short-term disability is meant to cover your salary " or a portion of it " during the time that you're UNABLE to do your job due to illness, injury, or childbirth." (emphasis mine)"Six weeks is the standard amount of time covered for pregnancy." [2]We are not talking about "a couple days at most", we are talking about six weeks during which the mother is unable to do her job. I would like to note to all voters out there that I have cited this source repeatedly now because of my opponent's inability to refer to my sources nor cite his own.5) CON has stated that "CON agrees that a possible course of action for a woman who wishes to raise children is to offer her resignation." CON has also stated that "Presidents can resign. This would be a less drastic, more sensible resolution to a POTUS becoming pregnant..." CON is thereby inferring that not only is pregnancy a condition for a POTUS to resign, but also that the mere intention of raising children is a cause for resignation. CON is thereby precluding the possibility that a working mother occupy the White House. This preposterous claim is far more radical than my own argument.I DISAGREE that "a possible course of action for a woman who wishes to raise children is to offer her resignation." Only in the case where childbearing is imminent, where birth control has failed, where the mother adopted a pro-life position that precluded abortion, and was dead-set in having a baby while occupying the White House, would I advocate resignation. This forced resignation would be required due to the six weeks of voluntary incapacitation that the woman VOLUNTARILY agreed to commit in order to birth a child. Such an act while in the Oval Office is irresponsible to say the least, and would compromise national security. Such an act is easily within the real of possibility for any woman under 40 years of age, much more than the possibility of another Aurora shooting. We have laws that seek to protect us from violent behavior, should we not also have laws that seek to strengthen national security?CLOSING ARGUMENTSMy argument is clear - a woman in the Presidency cannot be allowed to bear a child while in office, as such an event will become a national security issue due to substantial time off taken from work. The POTUS is exceptional in this regard, indeed there is precedence for this exceptional status in executive privilege. We simply cannot allow for a voluntary six week absence by the POTUS to interfere with national affairs. Such an event would demonstrate irresponsibility to the highest degree and denigrate the office of POTUS. I have advocated sterilization, i.e. "any procedure by which an individual is made incapable of reproduction", [3] and believe a legal procedure that would force a resignation from a POTUS intent on bearing a child would suffice, if a medical procedure was deemed too intrusive. Such a position does not intrude on a woman's civil rights. "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." It is not the gender of the POTUS which is at issue, but readiness concerns stemming from childbearing. It is only coincidental that childbearing is unique to womanhood, and only during a certain age bracket. If men were capable of childbearing, then men would also be required to adhere to such a proposal. My opponent agrees that childbearing in the Oval office is unacceptable: "CON agrees that a possible course of action for a woman who wishes to raise children is to offer her resignation." "CON: "Presidents can resign. This would be a less drastic, more sensible resolution to a POTUS becoming pregnant..."He agrees to the outcome of my proposed sterilization, yet continues to argue about semantics without offering any sources or citations. It is possible to interpret his own position as much more radical than my own.I thank iamnotwhoiam for participating in this debate. I also thank all the voters for participating in what I hope has been an interesting discussion on a somewhat unconventional topic. [1] http://www.babycenter.com...[2] http://www.babycenter.com...[3] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...