Ingenious punishments

Disrespectful behaviors are frowned upon by modern American society. In the article, the kid who threw a party was punished because he was had made too much noise, had a keg, and had under-age drinking at his party. He disrespected the law, and his neighborhood by making too much noise. Perhaps if he had not made a lot of noise, he would have never been caught. It seems that people are only concerned with bad behaviors when they know about it. What someone does not know, can't bother them.
Such punishments for these behaviors are shameful punishments. These shameful punishments are effective because it is almost cruel. These punishments are out of the ordinary and not common. However, in the article it said "the punishment must fit the crime" and this is true. These punishments ironically fit the crime. For example in the article when the kid threw a toga party with underage drinking, he had to stand in front of the police station wearing his toga, or when kids defaced a nativity scene they had to march around town with a donkey.
These punishments fit because they are punished by being mocked or shamed into guilt. In the scarlet letter, Hester Prynne commits the sin of adultery and has to wear a scarlet letter 'A' upon her breast. She also had to stand in front of the whole town and confess her sin. It is almost cruel because she is publicly humiliated. With such shaming punishments, the lesson is learned more permanently. In the article it stated "Mr. Cicconetti says he sees few repeat offenders." These punishments help to keep people from repeating their crime because they are harsh. They are harsh because of public humiliation, everyone gets to see the crime or sin you committed.
I don't think that these types of punishments are too harsh because what goes around comes around and you should treat things the way you want to be treated. If you want to deface a nativity scene, then it shouldn't bother you to have to march around town with a donkey. If you don't want to be mocked then you should not go about making fun of other things.

pro-choice vs. pro-life/choice vs. anti-choice

After todays Am. Studies large many questions can be brought up. On the issue of abortion, my question to the pro-life side is if, abortions were made illegal, would there be an increase in orphans, and children left without parents? When the representative gave some sort of statistic on how the abortion ratem is so great that if we continue it in 80 years, humans will be extinct I thought that this was questionable evidence because yes even though we are killing something when you have an abortion, we are not going to go around killing people. I thought that it was silly that she would apply the rate of abortion as if we were killing people who already exist on earth and are living.
Most of Aloha Pregnancy Care's arguments were backed up by the word of God. Well my question is what if you are a different religion, or if you do not believe in God. The word of God in this case is not enough evidence to back up their argument if you are a non-believer in God. Another question that can be brought up is, do people choose to be gay or are they born gay? If they are born gay then why would God create someone that is considered wrong in his own relgion.
The question that the Planned Parenthood representative brought up that I thought was a good question is "Why should one group of people get to impose their beliefs on another group of people?" I agree with being pro-choice because it is a more open-minded point of view and is more tolerant to differences. When the lady compared the views and beliefs taught by both sides she brought up a good point that the pro-life side is really anti-choice and that they only teach things one way, and that is God's way. This brings up the question what if you are not a religious person is this enough and valid proof to make you believe their point of view? I agree with the pro-choice side because their proof seems more valid to me, it is backed up by more scientific proof and is more open minded to all groups of people and their beliefs. The lady also brought up a good point that even if abortion is made illegal it won't go away, it just makes it less safe for women. She also said that abstinence education is proven to be non effective. If this is true than making abortion illegal would just be kind of stupid because people will still do it, but it will put them at greater risk of putting themselves in danger.
The pro-choice side is about being able to believe and practice your own personal values, rather than practicing in what someone wants you to believe in. I am not only disagreeing with teh pro-life side, but also questioning them, that if someone is not relgious then what proof do they have? The lady from Planned Parenthood brought up a good point that Aloha Pregnancy Care's main arugements are mostly scare tactics. This is true because they use God and the bible, and that does scare people. All their evidence is also saying that if you don't live the one, right way of living you are a bad person and bad things will happen to you. I don't think that there is just one way of living and that everyone has the choice to live the way they want, by what they belive in and value.