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

First of all, thank you iamnotwhoiam for volunteering to engage in this debate. I am glad that your points are of substance, and I will address them in the order presented. Before I do, I would like to focus on one particular phrase from my original argument: VOLUNTARY [1] INCAPACITATION [2] VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION - proceeding from the will or from ONE'S OWN CHOICE OR CONSENT to deprive of strength or ability; disable. This phrase will be central to my rebuttal. A. The law may forbid discriminate on basis on sex, but de facto discrimination and segregation occurs every time a man or woman enters a public restroom. Such segregation based on sex/gender is a welcome form of discrimination based on sex. It is indefensible to say that in both de jurs and de facto applications, a law forbidding discrimination based on sex is actually followed. A1. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 has never been applied to a woman holding the office of POTUS. While the POTUS is not above the law, he or she is certainly subject to executive privilege, which in many cases provide exceptions to the POTUS in regards to lawful behavior. The POTUS is an exceptional position in the USA. It is entirely reasonable to expect a person in such a position to be subject to exceptional stipulations IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Given that any VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION is detrimental to national security, the possibility of such VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATIONS needs to be eliminated whenever possible, to include the possibility of childbearing in women while in the office of POTUS. POTUS is subject to several forms of protocol deemed necessary for national security. Maintaining as high a state of readiness as possible is easily one of these necessities. It comes with the job. B. Your assumption regarding primary care-giving is unfounded and irrelevant to the debate. The real discussion is in short term disabilities resulting from pregnancy: [3] "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." Six weeks of VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION for the POTUS is unacceptable under any circumstances. These six weeks of VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION are unavoidable once the choice to bear a child has been made. This poses an unacceptable national security risk. Transfer of power to the Vice President under such a circumstance of VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATION would denigrate the office of POTUS. A resignation would be more appropriate (I address this point later). C. A history of heart disease is an INvoluntary incapacitation. Old age is an INvoluntary incapacitation. In such cases, transfer of power to the Vice President is constitutional and warranted. There are legal precedents for cases of INvolunatary incapacitations. There are no legal precedents for VOLUNTARY INCAPACITATIONS for the office of POTUS outside of Watergate. D. Testicular cancer is an INvoluntary incapacitation. A man does not have the ability to choose whether or not he will become subject to testicular cancer. Similarly a woman does not have the ability to choose whether or not she will become subject to breast cancer. Breast cancer is also an INvoluntary incapacitation. E. What if the electorate saw fit to elect someone under the age of 35 into the White House? This is an impossibility because of laws that prevent such an occurrence. The electorate does NOT have the democratic right to elect such a person to the office of POTUS. Regardless, the legality of the issue is not relevant to the argument, as laws are living documents that can be rendered constitutional or unconstitutional during its lifespan. Rather, the argument is normative in nature - SHOULD such a proposal be made law? F. Again, resignation is a choice, one that the POTUS can easily not make. Could America have survived if Nixon did NOT resign? THAT is the real question. Resignation due to an unplanned pregnancy should NOT be an issue that a POTUS should have to deal with. In both cases (Watergate and an unplanned pregnancy) all actions concerned were VOLUNTARY in nature. Nixon was nearly crucified by Congress due to Watergate. What manner of terrorism would the US be subject if it was made public knowledge that the POTUS was going to VOLUNTARILY INCAPACITATE HERSELF FOR AT LEAST SIX WEEKS due to childbearing? What other kinds of national security risk would we as a country face? G. I fully agree that employment should be truly meritocratic. Currently, there are standards such as physical fitness levels that clearly discriminate between sex and gender. Such discrimination, while warranted because of biological differences between the sexes, does place women at a disadvantageous position for certain forms of employment. Meritocratic behavior in this sense is clearly discriminatory based on sex and gender. This discrimination does not preclude a woman from seeking such employment, but it can certainly prove to be a hindrance. Again, such discrimination is codified in nearly every work environment that requires certain physical fitness standards. For the POTUS, physical fitness is less of a concern than readiness. Childbearing is an anathema to readiness and indeed does pose a national security risk if allowed to occur. Discriminating between A) a man, or a woman not of childbearing age, and B) a woman capable of childbearing is completely warranted by the needs of national security. CONCLUSION I believe in equal opportunity and equal pay in cases where all other aspects of two candidates are the same except for their gender. However, the readiness of a childbearing POTUS is clearly not equal to that of a non-childbearing POTUS, and I find just reason to discriminate based on this one factor. This factor does NOT discriminate based on gender, it is only coincidental that childbearing is a gender-specific event. With a woman's right to choose comes responsibilities unique to a woman's anatomy and biology. Discrimination based on such considerations is warranted in exceptional situations, where the feasibility of finding an adequate replacement for extended periods of time is highly dubious. While we do have succession plans in the cases of voluntary and INvoluntary incapacitations for the POTUS, voluntary incapacitations of any sort are highly irresponsible and denigrate the office of the presidency. Given the national security risks associated with any sort of incapacitations of the POTUS, I believe the citizenry have a right to codify this as a requirement for assuming the office of POTUS. If outright sterilization is an issue, then a pledge signed under oath to forego childbearing while in office would accomplish the same purpose. It would be de facto sterilization of a woman capable of childbearing while in office. NOTE - This argument does NOT discriminate based on gender, as a man would be equally weighted to a woman who was incapable of childbearing. It DOES discriminated based on READINESS, in that a woman capable of bearing a child, who does indeed bear a child, lowers the readiness level of the highest office in the land to an unacceptable degree. I would also imagine that any woman that underwent sterilization solely to assume the office of the POTUS would enjoy higher ratings, as such a sacrifice for the sake of her country would be noted and highly publicized. She would probably enjoy a positive bias based on this one factor, all else being equal vis a vis a male candidate, or vis a vis a female candidate not capable of childbearing. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.babycenter.com...