Resolved: The United States Federal Government should end its public funding for Planned Parenthood.

Contention 1: Kant's Categorical ImperiativesP1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.P2. Abortion does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce abortion through the funding of planned parenthood..""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. As a matter of fact the Planned Parenthood is actually the exact opposite of a Perfect Duty and is shown to be that of something that the Federal Government should protect against, or at least not do. I'll get more into this in a later contention.“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3]Contention 2: Moral Hazard.Yes, you read right, moral hazad. The definition of moral hazard is "The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles." [4] This is better known as "too big to fail." Now you may ask yourself why is this a moral hazard, the government funding Planned Parenthood? This is simple. Planned Parenthood does not have enough money to meet its opperation costs as seen bellow. Now you may ask yourself, "Where is the federal funding in that chart?" The answer is simple. The federal government has accounted for 46% of the organization's funds for this year. [5] This is an extreme crisis of the organization. Here we must apply a key principle of Hayek's and it is that of "Creative Destruction" meaning that when an organization or jobs go under then new ones replace it and this leads rise to inovation, however, when the government steps in to give subsidies or protects the industry then this doesn't happen. I'll make this a conparision. Say a child, a company, makes a sand castle on a beach, when the child leaves then a wave will wash the beach and there is no longer a sand castle, the next day another child will come and make a sand castle and so forth, but when the government gets involved then there can be no new sand castles made and the old one does not get destroyed as it is suppose to. When there is no competition nor is there no risk to go under then the company has no reason to take risky jumps and innovate. Milton Friedman has shown this in his book, "Free to Choose," where when a company recieves a subsidy and has no risk it ruins innovation. The second point here is that of funding itself. When we look at the federal government's subsidies then we can see that it is taking money away from their tax budget. Say an average person has $100, instead of buying some food they need they give $20 to charity and now they cannot afford to get food. (I realize that you can still buy fod with $80, but this is just an example.) This is called Oppertunist Cost. We can see that in this case that the federal government can easily give this subsidy money to another organization like NASA, DOT, or DOE. There are several areas of the government that could use some more money for improvement and giving this subsidy to Planned Parenthood takes away from that. [6] The other alternative here is that of saving money. The US debt is $18 trillion and climbing. [7] Not only that, but the US trade deficiet has been rising and that is something that the US needs to continiously prevent as the US is continously deficet spending. Even if we use the Keynsian model we can still see that in times of economic boom that the federal government should not defiet spending, but the US Federal government is on a kick to continously use deficet spending and has continued to do so for quite some time. Contention 3: The "Abortion" IssueNow I know I stated that this debate isn't about abortion, but this argument is about the Planned Parenthood videos and the federal laws on the topic. NOT about the morality of abortion itself. http://www.youtube.com... are all awhere of the recent videos of Planned Parenthood, but there is some actual controversy that is LEGAL behind the issue. The first I would like to introduce you into the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde amendment prevents any federal funding for abortions or abortion clinics. It also outlaws those of low income on Medicade and Medicare from getting an abortion with that type of insurance agency. [8] It is also no secrete that Planned Parenthood is that of an abortion clinic as they even have their own page on the subject. [9] So how did this funding get through, it was actually part of the funding package that was so long that many Congressmen and women didn't have time to read it. I will have to go into this last contention a litle more indepth next round, but I'm out of characters.Sources 1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)4. (http://www.investopedia.com...) 5. "Government Funding for Planned Parenthood (10 Years) | Your Money | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2015.6. "Chapter 2: The Effects of Subsidies." The Effects of Subsidies. Global Subsuidy Initiative, n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2015. <https://www.iisd.org...;.7. (http://www.usdebtclock.org...) 8. (https://www.aclu.org...)9. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org...)