Talk:Abortion in Japan

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]