Discussion On Political Socialization Develops Expectations

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

As the Courts continue to argue in terms of morality, their attitudes when it comes to dealing with cases concerning abortion are vague, even as they succeed in placing financial burdens on the process (Engstrom 25). Unfortunately, the ambiguity present allows for those who can’t afford their constitutional right to go through potentially harmful ‘back-alley’ abortions and risk their lives during the process (Engstrom 7). The Hyde Amendment and Supreme Court cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are examples of the way Courts and Congress have placed restrictions on low-income women when it comes to obtaining an abortion (Engstrom 14). They do this through ‘back-door’ attempts that succeed in eroding at crucial legislation as they are refrained by current legislation from taking on the law directly (Engstrom 2). These restrictions can lead to horrible outcomes for women who are desperate enough to explore riskier options (McGee 102-103). Low-income women are facing limitations established by funding restrictions within the Hyde Amendment and the ambiguity of the Court in contradicting cases (Engstrom

Adams, E. Jill. (2005). THE ABORTION RIGHTS CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA: A LEGAL READER. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 20, 308-320. Retrieved on February 26, 2017, from EBSCOhost database

Abortion is a controversial topic that has plagued the country for decades. Even after the 7-2 Supreme Court trial (Roe vs. Wade) made it legal for women to choose to get abortions. This decision was based off the right of privacy coupled with the agreement between the woman and the state. Due to this decision abortion rights vary from state to state, in fact, about 85% of United States counties do not provide abortion services. Even though, abortion is ten times safer than the actual process of giving birth and 68,000 women died from resorting to “back-alley abortions.” Knowing all this, there are still two main groups arguing

Of all the issues plaguing the United States, currently and in the past, abortion rights have been one of the most passionately debated civil liberty issues. Edward Sidlow and Beth Henschen define civil liberties as “Individual rights protected by the Constitution against the powers of the government”(72). Some argue that women should be protected from the powers of government in terms of reproductive rights while others argue that it is the duty of the government to protect the lives of everyone, including fetuses. This is such an important issue for Americans that it often dictates who a person votes for in elections; Republicans are most often pro-life and Democrats are

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the 1973 Roe v. Wade interpreted the constitutional right to privacy portion to entail a woman’s right to abortion. This case gave rise to the most intense and political debate in the U.S. today. This debate was further complicated in the 1992 decision in the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which allowed for states to enact legislation to restrict and regulate abortion. The dispute over abortion rights has remained constant over the last 20 years between 1973 and 1994 (Carmines, & Woods, 2002). Moreover, there is a sharp divide between Democratic and Republican parties. Democratic party elites have taken a pro-choice approach while Republicans are pro-life. According to a survey

The United States has been divided now over the issue of abortion for thirty-three years since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973. As of today, over 45 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Pro-choice advocates hold these 45 million abortions as being 45 million times women have exercised their right to choose to get pregnant and to choose to control their own bodies. To pro-life, or anti-abortion, advocates these 45 million abortions constitute 45 million murders, a genocide of human life in the United States propagated by the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. The debate over abortion in the United States is thus a debate of two extremes. One side argues from the personal liberty of the mother. The

Beginning with the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has consistently guarded the abortion rights of women in America. Abortion advocates have praised the decision for decades, and it has become a staple, however controversial, of American law. Throughout the following decades, various cases reached the Court that forced it to reconsider its decision, and Roe v. Wade was always upheld. This changed in 2007 with Gonzales v. Carhart, the first decision in which the Court allowed certain abortion rights to be curtailed. Much evidence suggests that Gonzales is the beginning of a new trend, and that the Court may begin to slowly allow abortion rights to be eroded. Behind this change lies a battle between conservatives and liberals, not about abortion, but about the role of the Supreme Court in American politics. Unfortunately, the abortion issue, difficult in of itself, is being used as a stage on which to fight a much larger battle about our government’s structure, unnecessarily perpetuating the controversy and uncertainty surrounding abortion policy in the United States. As a result of this, it may be better for abortion advocates in pursuit of their cause to avoid the Supreme Court altogether.

In 1791, the United States’ government added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments of the Constitution and guarantees essential civil rights and liberties to the citizens of the United States. Among these are the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial. Each of the ten amendments covers specific rights and freedoms ensured by the Bill of Rights and plays a major role in preserving our social contract. Despite its guarantees, however, the Bill of Rights is in conflict with the main body of the Constitution.

Political socialization is the theory of how humans form political values and culture are formed in order to spread those ideals to the next generation, whether it be directly or indirectly, socialization often plays a part in our daily lives, and affects children as young as adolescents. Usually, the primary institutions of family, church, workplace, school, and political parties are all agents which will all at any point in time have an effect in your life and are invested to change your ideas or to reinforce them further.

Political socialization is nearly impossible to avoid in today's living with technology in almost every part of our lives and the diversity of our world. The only way to avoid political socialization is to avoid all contact and socialization with the outside world. To fully understand political socialization and how it affects your everyday life it is best to know the definition. “The transmission of political norms via cultural agents, like educational facilities, mothers, fathers, or other caregivers, peers and friends, or the mass media." ("What is POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION? definition of POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)," n.d.)Now how do these agents affect my views on politics?

As civilization continues to age and the world under comes the evolution of shifting ideologies and notions, it is inevitable for changes to occur within many systems of our presumed social and cultural structures. Now, early sociologist were able to critically examine and analyze trends which affect the outcome of these changes and how humans reacted or adapted to these established concepts. Correspondingly, a majority of predictions and developments of a future society are founded on contemporary changes and issues of today. In essence, the next twenty years of society will generate changes to political organizations and thinking, definitions of race and religion, types of employment, and advancements of urban life.

My family and I are newly immigrants from Vietnam where people do not talk much about politics. Coming to the United States, I was overwhelmed by various media that we can access political information. Even though online news is my main source to get information, soft news through comedian’s show is my favorite channel to get political news such as “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” It is interesting and wider spreading that people insert political controversies into entertaining TV show. Even though I am not a citizen now, I am interested to be able to vote once possible. I would not align myself with any political party right now, but I consider myself as a moderate conservative. The last presidential campaign was debatable. I would vote for Trump.

Political Socialization is described as an individual’s lifelong process by which they form their ideas about politics. People acquire their political orientations commonly from parents, teachers and the mass media. I would say I was influenced by my parents in my political orientation, but as I grew older my political orientation became part of my own. Like a majority of the public, my personal political orientation changed drastically while being immersed in a politically aware school: Southwest. Before going to Southwest, I was secluded in Lake Harriet, which was not a school that was aware of the political and world problems, the students were only aware about their school drama. Mass media and Southwest, common political influencers, both favor liberal ideals and disapprove of conservative ideals have also led me to the path of liberal. My first political memory was when I was in 3rd grade and I was sitting at my friends dining room table talking about the presidential candidates, which is a weird dinner topic for two 3rd graders. We argued about who we both thought would be the best candidate, I argued for Obama while she argued for McCain. I specifically remember her asking me why did I think Obama would make a great president for the United States and I remember telling her that I don’t know much about him except that he is who my parents are voting for. My political orientation was influenced by my parents, just like many of the public, very early in my