We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

See Pricing

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and See Pricing

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Political Ideology Paper

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

Deadline:2 days left
"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

Many people have different opinions on political subjects. The ways a person may feel about these subjects determine what they are in the political world. I personally do not follow politics like other people older than me do, but I do consider myself to be a moderate democrat. Both of my parents are democrats, and they choose to be of this political spectrum because they feel like the Democratic Party represents them. They feel as they stand for policies that will better them as people.

With me, I am my own person so I take in the considerations of my parents’ choice, but also make my own decisions.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Political Ideology Paper
Just from $13,9/Page
Get custom paper

I do believe in some of the policies and ideas of the Democratic Party, but disagree on some of them as well. So this is the reason why I consider myself a democratic moderate. There are many reasons to the choice that I choose to represent my political identity. The topic of abortion is very controversial and hard to agree on for many people.

I believe that the simple concepts and ideals of abortion are wrong. A person should not have the right to kill their unborn child for plain and simple selfish reasons.

In the bible it says that murder is a sin, it is one of the Ten Commandments. People who commit sins with the intention of sinning will be judged by God in the end. People may protest and say that it is the mothers’ choice whether to keep the child or not and that is true, but they can put their child up for adoption or drop them off at a hospital or fire station until a certain age rather than killing the child. I do not understand why people would want to kill their child whether it is unwanted or not. Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. Some requirements for abortion deal with a person’s daily doctor. Physician and Hospital Requirements: 38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 19 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point. Partial-Birth” Abortion has had an effect on 16 states which have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 4 of these laws apply only to post viability abortions.

Since the choice to abort a child is a personal and wrong decision the public should not have anything that deals with the payment of the procedure. The truth of the matter is that 17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state. 2 states prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Coverage by Private Insurance: 4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans to cases in which the woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Additional abortion coverage is permitted only if the woman purchases it at her own expense. The refusal limitations are that 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 3 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions. Many people believe that counseling is necessary: 18 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer, the ability of a fetus to feel pain , long-term mental health consequences for the woman or information on the availability of ultrasound.

When going through the decision to kill an unborn child the waiting period in 24 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed. 7 of these states have laws that effectively require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure. Parents should be involved in such a decision like this so 36 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 2 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 12 require that one or both parents be notified and 4 states require both parental consent and notification. Many people believe that restrictive abortion laws may worsen family communication rather than promote it. Abortion providers encourage teenagers to tell a parent or another important family member about their plans, and most teens do. Even without state laws, one or both parents of 61% of minors know about their daughters’ abortions.

The younger the teen, the higher the likelihood that she has told her mother about the situation. Those young women who do not or cannot tell their parents, however, often have important reasons such as a family history of alcoholism, emotional or physical abuse, or incest. To involve such parents could invite further abuse of the teenager and other family members. Rather than tell their parents – for whatever reason – some teenagers resort to unsafe, illegal abortions or try to perform the abortion themselves. In doing so, they risk serious injury and death or, in some cases, criminal charges.

Another concern is that restrictive laws endanger teens’ health by inhibiting them from seeking safe medical care early in pregnancy. Doctors recommend that when a woman becomes pregnant – whether she plans to give birth or have an abortion – she seek medical care immediately. In the case of abortion, her risk is lowest if she seeks care in the early weeks of pregnancy. By placing roadblocks in teenagers’ paths, restrictive laws have the effect of creating further delays among women who already have difficulty seeking prompt care.

When teens know that health care providers are forced by law to tell their parents before providing services, they are less willing to get health care related to sexual activity. These concerns are very good, but they do not excuse the fact that innocent children are being killed because the mothers’ do not want them, do not want to lose their figure, or do not feel equipped to handle the responsibility of being a mother. If a person did not want to or do not think they could handle motherhood then the best concept would be to practice abstinence and or use protection.

Laws restricting teen access to abortion are coercive. Laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia allow mothers who are under 18 to place their children for adoption without involving their parents, but many of those same states require parental notification or consent before these young women can obtain abortions. This sets up a standard that clearly favors one resolution over another, restricts the reproductive choices of young women, and forces some to bear children that they do not want to bear.

These laws lean near the anti-abortion side because it gives a simpler result with giving a child up for adoption. Many people may argue the pro and cons of abortion for days and not conclude a unified agreement, so based of my research and my feelings towards the topic I strongly believe that abortion is and will always be wrong. With abortion there comes health care. Health care is a topic that the government has been working on for a while. Some people such as the Democratic Party strive for universal/national health care.

I personally believe that health care is a necessity and privilege of the people. If people were not covered nor have health care then there is a possibility that they may be denied in a time of need. I personally do not see why people might be against universal or national health care, because it would help many people along the road. As of September 23, 2010 part of America’s new health care law went into effect. And now, young adults will be able to stay on our parents’ health insurance policies until the age of 26. It’s one of the most important parts of recent health care reforms.

For the first time in American history, an entire generation – our generation – will be able to finish school, look for a job and enjoy life without having to worry about getting denied access to health care. In the past, insurance companies could kick us off our parents’ health care plan when we turned 19 or graduated from college. But as of September 23rd, that just can’t happen anymore. As of September 23rd, if you are under the age of 26 and have already been kicked off your parents’ plan, you can re-enroll on their insurance plan.

And, unless you have insurance coverage through your own job, you can keep your parents’ coverage even if you aren’t a student or aren’t living with your parents – even if you are married, financially independent or living in another state. People may argue that the health care plan has a good concept, but not good intentions or outcomes for the people. Improvements in technology and medical care have increased life expectancy by a considerable amount.

Alongside these improvements, health care costs have risen dramatically because the health of the people in a nation reflects the health of the nation itself, health care law is vital for the stability of the United States. If a person thinks about and analyzes the counterclaim they would understand that if a person did not have health care their bill would still be at a high price and maybe even higher, so the fact that the prices for people have gone up should not have a great deal on people. If people do have money problems then they can qualify for social welfare.

Social welfare is a policy designed to help people. Policies that provide benefits to individuals, either through entitlements or means of testing are available to help people; these are known as social welfare policies. The social security check for retired grandmother, the food stamp coupon for the poor family, the school buildings and programs, and the Medicare reimbursement for a hip replacement are but a few examples. No public policy stimulates more argument and causes more confusion than social welfare. Many Americans equate social welfare exclusively with government moneys given to the poor.

Yet the government gives far more money to the non-poor than to people below the poverty line. Political scientists Martin Gilens says that while “the welfare is often associated with aid to the poor,” in fact about five-sixths of all money for social programs goes to universally available benefit programs available to middle class and well-off Americans; only 17 percent of social spending goes to the poor. Few Americans have the slightest qualms about assisting older Americans with government programs. Social welfare policies consist of two kinds of projects.

First are the entitlement programs. An entitlement program is any benefit provided by law and regardless of need. The two biggest entitlement programs are Medicare and social Security. These two programs are designed to help many people in need and are often argued about. The center of the argument for some time and even recently has been President Obama’s health care plan. The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama this year will provide seniors and their families with greater savings and increased quality health care.

It will also ensure accountability throughout the health care system so patients and their doctor—not insurance companies—have greater control over their own care. On Tuesday, June 8, President Barack Obama – in a national tele-town hall meeting answering questions directly from seniors across the country – launched an unprecedented national campaign to combat fraud and misinformation and delivers the facts to America’s seniors about Medicare and the Affordable Care Act.

The campaign includes a series of steps to protect seniors by ensuring they have clear and accurate information about the new law and implementing stronger tools to fight waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. Administration officials attended neighborhood meetings where seniors gathered to participate in the tele-town hall to answer additional questions from seniors. More than 100 events were held across the country. Despite all of the controversial ideas said and concluded about the social welfare I agree with it.

The concept of social welfare and the actions that have been made to better it are wonderful acts that help people out. I like that social welfare helps out not just one class of people, but whoever is in need. Another issue is immigration reforms. I believe that immigrants that are here illegally should be deported, no questions asked and that we need to have better border control. Where we are today people are blind when it comes to illegal immigrants. Being blind to this matter is causing more problems because more and more people are expecting change.

I believe that anyone that are not supposed to be here should be forced to return to where they belong and if they wish to return back to the United States then they need to apply for citizenship. People may argue that if a person came to the United States as an infant and was forced to go back to their hometown as a young adult or teenager would be wrong. That person was raised her and went to United States school all of their life, so they do not know anything other than the American customs, so sending them back would not be fair and unmerciful.

Just think that very person that is not a citizen goes to our public schools from kindergarten until they graduate from high school using our education system while we are paying for them to go. We are paying the taxes for their children and ours to go to school because illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Then there is the possibility of an illegal immigrant stealing a person’s identity and social security number to advance in life, when all they had to do was go through a process to become a citizen. We have an Immigration Law that is supposed to regulate and help the flow of immigrants coming in the United States.

International Immigration Law refers to national government policies which control the methods, processes and practices associated with immigrants coming into their country. It is associated with nationality law, which governs a person’s legal status with regards to citizenship and nationality. Immigration laws vary from country to country and are regulated by international law. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates that all counties allow entry to its own citizens. U. S.

Immigration Law is federally mandated. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) defined an alien as any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. U. S. Immigration Law determines whether an individual is an alien, and covers the legal rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the U. S. It also encompasses the processes by which certain aliens can gain residence in the U. S. , or become naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. It regulates entry into the U. S. borders, addressing which ersons may enter, how long they may stay and when they must leave. U. S. Immigration Laws are located in Title 8 of the U. S. Code. Because they are federal, immigration laws are generally uniform across the United States. Although States do have limited legislative authority regarding some aspects of immigration.

The Congress has complete authority over U. S. Immigration. The President’s power is limited to refugee policy, and the courts will not become involved in immigration issues unless constitutional rights are involved. There are various U. S. gencies responsible for enforcing immigration laws. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS. Within this department, three different agencies now handle the duties formerly held by the INS: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions; U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions; and U. S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), which handles the INS’s border patrol duties.

The U. S. Department of State (DOS) manages consulates and embassies around the world. These laws and plans to deal with immigration would be very helpful if they were enforced. I have no problem if a person comes to the United States legally, but when here illegally they should be automatically deported. When legal we have to worry about being treated as a citizen and not as an ethnicity. Affirmative action helps deal with these problems. I agree with affirmative action because it helps balance out opportunities and have equal rights for people.

Affirmative action prevents discrimination in many ways. Several issues are designed to be addressed with affirmative action. The first is a past history of discrimination, with affirmative action laws recognizing the fact that many people have been excluded historically from jobs, schools, and social endeavors, and that in many cases, this historic pattern of exclusion has created disadvantages. Concerns about current discrimination are also designed to be addressed by affirmative action, as are desires to create a more fully integrated and diverse society.

Affirmative action programs are governed by a number of overlapping laws. A common principle is that whether for admissions or employment, affirmative action programs such as targeted recruitment and goals are encouraged to remedy past effects of discrimination; quotas are disfavored. Affirmative action in American employment law has evolved through a series of governmental proclamations, court decrees, and voluntary programs instigated by employers in the private sector. Private employers who receive no public funding are not required to adopt affirmative action policies.

Affirmative action policies are enforced by the entities adopting them if they are voluntary, while affirmative action policies required by government mandates can be enforced through the legal system. For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. With all of the laws for affirmative action there is no way that people will be put down because of discrimination and I support that.

Another issue that ties to affirmative action is the topic of gay marriage. Even though I agree with affirmative action I absolutely disagree with the right of gay marriage. In the Bible it explains that a man and a woman were meant to be together and be fruitful and multiply, that is the reason why God created humans. So if God created humans to be fruitful and multiply and “man and a man” or a “woman and a woman” cannot reproduce and fulfill Gods will. The topic of gay marriage is controversial because people have many strong religious feelings towards the topic and politics and religion do not mix.

So therefor when the government tries to make laws about the subject many religious problems arise. In many states gay marriage is banned. According to Section 30-1-19 aka The Alabama Marriage Protection Act, “A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state … The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued. California has official registry for same-sex couples and law banning same-sex marriage. Although on 5/15/08 the California Supreme Court ruled that “the right to marry in California extends equally to all, gay and straight alike,” Proposition 8 banning gay marriage was approved by voters in November 2008. Although Prop 8 was overturned in August 2010 by U. S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, his decision was immediately appealed to the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That trial will begin on December 6, 2010. Many states banned ame sex marriage because of all the problems that arise from the topic. The topic and description of being labeled as being “gay” can bring a person many problems in their life. For example if a person is in the military and they come out and say that they are gay they may face many altercations that may jeopardize their position in the military. For the actions that might lead up to an openly gay member of the military there is a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy. This policy has required such troops to hide their sexual identity or risk being expelled from the services.

I think that this policy is wrong because people should not have to walk around in fear of losing their position in the military based on who they are attracted to. The U. S. military will for the first time in history allow gays to serve openly after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy. While opponents said repeal would create a battlefield distraction that could endanger troops, supporters drew parallels to the military’s decision to end racial segregation in the 1950s and the admission of women to military service academies in the 1970s.

For decades, being gay was grounds for discharge, and tens of thousands of service members were forced out after their sexual identities were exposed. President Bill Clinton, who had hoped to end that ban, authorized “don’t ask” as a compromise in 1993. More than 13,000 troops have been discharged under the policy. The years-long legislative debate over the policy came to an end Saturday as senators voted 65 to 31 to send the repeal legislation to President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to eliminate the ban on gays serving openly. “It is time to close this chapter in our history,” Obama said later in a statement. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. ” The repeal of the policy has helped many service members be open while doing their duty as serving their country. The ideal of hiding your identity is just wrong so the appeal has helped many people join and not worry about being set aside for their feelings toward a person or gender. Being in the military is a good thing to be a part of. The use of the military is also important.

Military is here to protect and fight for their country and I agree with the use of it. The Democratic Party wants to pull the troops out of Iraq and bring them home. I totally agree with that because they have been out there for a long time and have not found what they were sent out there to find, which weapons of mass destruction were. The military is needed, but just not for unnecessary reasons. The topic of the death penalty, which I agree with, is not often argued in public affairs. John McAdams once said “If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers.

If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call. ” This statement is very controversial because it’s is saying that they rather take the chance of killing innocent people than to let murders go free and kill more people. The fact that innocent people get killed is the reason why Democrats oppose the reason of the death penalty. I’d rather take the chance of making a mistake than to let a killer go free.

It should not matter how many people were killed or the reason of why they were killed the act in all is illegal. The concepts of breaking the law should be treated as sin in a way. No sin is greater than another is wrong in the eyes of God, so therefor if a person was convicted for murdering another person they should not be exempt from the death penalty. If they were bold enough to take a persons’ life then what they do should be done unto them and they should be put to death. Lastly, I want to disagree with governmental waste going on. The government wastes that I am talking about are pork-barrel spending/earmarks.

These are when a member of Congress adds funding onto an unrelated spending bill for a specific project (in his/her home state) that benefits voters in that state in order to become more popular with them in an effort to win re-election I believe that the government should not waste money on useless things. The problem of wasteful spending and “earmarks” is especially difficult to solve because members of both political parties are equally eager to spend tax dollars on worthless and unnecessary “pet projects. ” In this regard, there is no difference between the two political parties.

I believe that the government does not have the right to add in personal aspects in a government bill. The reason Congress has churned out so many pork-barrel projects so successfully for so long is pretty simple: Everybody did it, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Pork-barrel spending transfers wealth from everyday taxpayers to special interests who can afford access to power. Most of the projects have no real benefit for the vast majority of Americans. Therefor Pork-barrels have no advantage of the American people themselves just the advantages of the government officials that add the Pork-barrels in the policies.

From writing this paper and sharing my opinions about certain aspects that are taken in to consideration by many people it has helped me realize where I am on the political spectrum. Based on the way that I expressed my opinion it has helped me realize that I am a Moderate. In the beginning of the paper I stated that I was a democratic moderate. When I calculated who I agreed with more I realized that I shared a common idea with the Republicans four times and the Democrats five times and there was one time when I stood alone. Therefor since there was not a tie but I reside in the middle of the political spectrum.

I have learned that my ways of thinking on certain aspects are influenced greatly of my religion. I do not believe in gay marriage, but I do believe that people should not be held back if they are interested in a person of the same stature. Many of my ideals contradict another, but the contradictions do not get me confused or change my feelings toward the subject. This paper has helped me learn about governmental policies and how many people view them and most of all it helped me better understand what I am and who I stand for.

Cite this Political Ideology Paper

Political Ideology Paper. (2017, Mar 19). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/political-ideology-paper/

Show less
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Get help form professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Search for essay samples now

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get my paper now

For Only $13.90/page