Talk:Abortion in Japan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion in Japan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Japan: Culture / History High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 22:02, December 23, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Culture task force.

This article is supported by the History task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

}}

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HHuang8. Peer reviewers: Ellazzhq.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion over how prevalent abortion is in Japan. This article has at times stated that it is the most common method of birth control, and at other times that it is the least common method of birth control in the country. I removed the superlatives and stated simply that it is common. There is an article that provides stats, and it would indicate that abortion is less common than use of a condom and more common than the pill: <a href="http://family.jrank.org/pages/993/Japan-Birth-Control-Abortion.html">Japan - Birth Control And Abortion</a>

Perhaps someone with good Wikipedia / HTML skills can alter this article's first graf to state that. 38.165.15.200 (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "The people themselves recognised the need for a eugenics law" is far from neutral. Does anyone besides me have any opinions? Habemus (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oral contraceptives

I've lived in Japan for 14 years, and do not know anyone who uses oral contraceptives. My prefectural hospital (Idai) doesn't regularly carry the pill, and my wife had to go through great lengths to get it for a spell. This would hardly support the statement in this article "... despite widespread use of contraceptives." That part should be striken from the opening paragraph.

Morning after pill

The morning after pill is widely available in Japan. The price varies just as widely, from aroun 10,000yen in Tokyo to only 300 yen in Hokkaido. Also, the regular contraceptive pill is readily available and very commonly used all over Japan from my experience, over the past four-five years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrosan (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oral contraceptives

Oral contracepitves are NOT widespread in Japan. Ingesting them is considered anomalous. Only 3.7% of women in Japan have ever taken oral contraceptives. They are very difficult to come by, even in Tokyo. I am striking this misleading sentence from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.234.19 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jizo

The article mentions nothing about the cult of the souls of aborted fetuses. I wonder if there is a reason for this. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more information

Hello! I am adding some new information regarding the history of abortion in Japan from the Edo period to 1948. I will be leaving the vast majority of the article untouched. If there are any questions, please let me know!Scb3 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great history coverage! But, I don't understand the very last citation in the History section. Why is it a link instead of a normal citation? The "New 1996 framework" subsection needs more citations, also. The last sentence of that same section is also worded in a way that sounds analytical of the law and unnecessary. I think you could remove "as if they were a late addition" without harming your paragraph. (Unless you didn't write this paragraph, although I think editing it would make it stronger.) Overall, a much-needed addition to history; good work. Rachelpop- (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why that last citation is a link; it is a citation that was already there when I arrived, and I did not feel comfortable changing it, as I wasn't sure if there was a specific purpose for it. However, now that you've pointed it out, I will turn it into a proper citation instead, as I can see it really doesn't match the flow of the article.

I didn't do the section on the 1996 framework, like you guessed, so I don't have any sources to add. I can, however, go through and edit it stylistically.

But yes! Thank you for these suggestions!Scb3 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems self-contradictory.

The opening paragraph reads:

Chapter XXIX of the Penal Code of Japan makes abortion illegal in the country. Meanwhile, the Maternal Health Protection Law allows approved doctors to practice abortion with the consent of the mother and her spouse, if the pregnancy has resulted from rape, or if the continuation of the pregnancy may severely endanger the maternal health because of physical reasons or economic reasons. Any other persons, including the mother herself, trying to abort the fetus will be punished by the law. Anyone trying to practice abortion without the consent of the woman will also be punished, including the doctors. No abortifacient has been approved in Japan. Approved doctors, however, can choose to use imported abortifacient under the same terms above. Any other people who abort the fetus using abortifacient will be also punished.

Taken in whole, this has the broad meaning that abortion is illegal as an elective procedure, and only permissibly under special circumstances. However, the end of the History section reads as follows:

After World War II, Japan found itself in a population crisis. In 1946, 10 million people were declared at risk of starvation, and between the years 1945 and 1950, the population increased by 11 million. In 1948, Japan legalized abortion under special circumstances. Eugenic Protection Law of 1948, made Japan one of the first countries to legalize induced abortion. This law was revised as the Maternal Body Protection Law in 1996. Currently, abortion is widely accepted in Japan. According to a 1998 survey, 79 percent of unmarried and 85 percent of married women approved of abortion. According to researchers at Osaka University in 2001, 341,588 legal abortions were carried out in Japan, a 2.5 percent increase from 1998 to 2001. However, in 2007 the figure had decreased to around 256,000.

Whilst it does not explicitly state so, this reads as if abortion is now essentially available to all at their personal discretion. I suggest someone with more knowledge than I of the laws in question revises the article to clarify this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.128.130 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this topic, but I see that the first para of concern speaks of the Penal Code of Japan (apparently passed in 1907 and later amended several times [1]). I notice that the "after WW-II" para above speaks of de-jure regulation in a 1948 law revised in 1996 and about asserted de-facto practice between 1996 and 2007. I do not know details about any of that, but the Abortion law article attempts to describe the regulatory situation as of 2013. There has been some discussion about Japan there at Talk:Abortion law#Japan color is wrong. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]