Japanese politician wants to boost the national birth rate by banning abortion
Seiko Noda, a legislator in Japan’s house of representatives since 1993, has worked on the birthrate issue for years. She’s not an obscure figure, having served in several cabinet positions. But her newest proposal is a little unusual and maybe a bit of a stretch. If we want people to have more babies, she argues in Japan’s most-read newspaper, Asahi Shimbun, the country should just ban abortion.
Noda’s plan makes perfect economic sense, if you assume that no one ever gets an abortion because they are incapable, for financial or other reasons, of raising the child that they would otherwise have. You also have to assume that the costs to society of forcing Japanese mothers to carry unwanted children to term would be outweighed by the benefits, for example because these children might become the responsibility of the state. And, finally, the plan works if you assume that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term would have no negative effects on the economic productivity of the mother, who might be a young student who would have to drop out of either school or the work force or both to have the child.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
WAR ON (JAPANESE WORD FOR WOMEN)
El_Terrible on February 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Onna(pronounced like oh-na)
angelwing34215 on February 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Oh, and homosexuality doesn’t help birth rates either.
Nature and survival are so bigoted.
Daemonocracy on February 26, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Why don’t they just open the border and incentivize people to move there illegally?
rhombus on February 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM
Planning on outlawing teh ghey, so that they have more children?
Something tells me there’s a flaw in such a plan…
JohnGalt23 on February 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM
lol. winner.
El_Terrible on February 26, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Almost want to write “ha, ha, ha,” but abortion is not a laughing matter.
Under a different social climate, do you think the state will hesitate in the least to abolish the sacred progressive sacrament of abortion.
What the state giveth, the state taketh away.
mwbri on February 26, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Bingo.
jawkneemusic on February 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Not if you force marital sex or something.
aryeung on February 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Abortion apologists are such vile people. Their entire argument boils down to “This human being is inconvenient so let’s just kill them!”
When the ability to murder another human being in cold blood is considered a human right you know you have problems as a society.
Kronos on February 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM
They must be racists.
aryeung on February 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM
If this does not help with state survival and fulfilling social entitlements with enough young workers to support the system, will they ban birth control next?
mwbri on February 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM
They keep using the word “unwanted”. Real story there.
If Japan wants birthrates to increase, stop subsidizing free sex. In fact, stop subsidizing period (and maybe stop spending so darn much in general).
nobar on February 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM
I would think that Grandma Barbi Pelosi would be on board with this… since all these un-aborted people would be on unemployment and nothing would kickstart our economy more than more unemployment checks…..
……….RIGHT?
lm10001 on February 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Smart. If US conservatives want to argue in favor of reducing or banning abortions, this is the way to do it. The falling birthrate in Japan in a major problem. There are other reasons besides abortions, of course, but abortion sure isn’t helping either.
The best part of it is, she isn’t a practicing Christian either, which will also make it harder to dismiss her arguments.
Doomberg on February 26, 2013 at 2:27 PM
Exactly. Since liberals are almost to a man anti-theistic if not outright a$$thiests, they can’t subscribe to the concept of inalienable rights. Which means EVERY law giving what their wicked little hearts desire is up for grabs if the pendulum swings the other way.
A state strong enough to legalize wanton baby murder, grab guns, make going after someone for slandering you nigh-impossible, persecute Christians, subsidize promiscuity, and provide sanctions for every perverted ‘relationship’ under the sun is all well and good…for a liberal at least…
Until it suddenly goes the other way. Then they suddenly find themselves in a nation where both the ‘mother’ and ‘doctor’ involved in a convenience abortion are on trial for murder, guns are as common as purses, the government DARES to “legislate morality”, they can be dragged to a duel of honor, and sexual deviants have been tossed back into the closet and the door barred behind them.
Funny thing, though: the latter society would not only be prosperous but a d@mn nice place to live if you had your head on straight.
MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM
Liberals/atheists love to go on about how smart the japanese are and that it’s due to Japan being largely atheists. They ALSO love going on how making abortion illegal in most/all cases would be unconstitutional because of “seperation of church and state” because it is their belief that people are only pro-life for religious reasons.
Now how are they going to circle this square?
DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Do you normally see things that aren’t there? That’s not normal, you should get that checked out.
I am stating the obvious.
Daemonocracy on February 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM
As much of the problem is reportedly centered around both Japanese men and women having little interest in sex entirely, I don’t really know how much this would fix the declining birthrate.
That said, it’s worth a try. Save some innocent lives, follow the basic precepts of Natural law and human rights, and maybe… just maybe… the nation might start reaping some blessings.
Gingotts on February 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM
The flaw is in your head, Galtian.
Forget “outlawing” – how about just not subsidizing it?
Hell why not quit subsidizing ANY kind of sexual behavior?
MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM
In Japan Abortion is probably not the driver of the dearth in births. I applaud the end to abortion, but Japanese society has degraded to the point that boys there dream of the day they are getting sexual gratification from robots and day dreaming about their online toon, not the day they marry a virgin and have their first born.
astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Japan’s Population Now So Old That Sales Of Adult Diapers Exceed Those For Babies
Resist We Much on February 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Or just jail people for not having kids by a certain age.
Free Constitution on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM
Subsidize tenticals being surgically added to their bodies. That’ll solve the problem over there:-P
DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM
and yet you can still buy used womens underwear from vending machines in tokyo
ChunkyLover on February 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM
I think anyone who goes by the name John Galt, is against all subsidies.
Free Constitution on February 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Worked great in America for centuries. Those who were gay, still married women, bore children and raised them and kept their gayness subdued or in the closet.
I would be happy to go back to those days.
astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Yeah, when gays were routinely harrassed, jailed, and beaten for being different. Good times.
Free Constitution on February 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Umm… Heh, think you had a bit of a typo there. You have an “n” instead of an “s.” Like fertility would increase with more tentacles. Who in Japan is in to that?
You… uh…you did mean… They really are in to tentacles.
Oh dear God…
Gingotts on February 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Not different, miscreant. Why? Because tens of thousands of years of human observation learned the hard lesson that TOLERATING them was a path to the destruction of their society. In order to keep their society thriving, it was needed to stomp the miscreants down. That way their aberrant behavior would not degenerate and debauch their society into oblivion. They knew that when the gays got old, it was OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN who paid to support them. It was also why people were effectively not allowed to remain single and were shamed and derided for wanting to.
astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Cry me a river, sleeper-cell troll. We are now fighting to not be forced to recognize relationships God himself says he hates, if not be persecuted for such disgraces as preaching against said relationships in our churches.
MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM
I have lived in both environments, and the latter was more civilized. Abortion made ‘self’ more important than sacrifice for others, and opened the door for decadence, although the supporters are in denial about what had to change in the human heart to allow the mass exterminations.
No coincidence a Japanese leader wishes the ‘tube people’, the bed ridden elderly would die.
When the State takes over the care of the elders, children aren’t needed to help parents in their old age. The incentive is gone.
Meanwhile the State will confiscate what is needed to care for all the elders, and the workers will adjust to the tax burdens by having less children. This is happening in our nation, although we are behind the Japan curve, and we still have Christians and others who support life.
entagor on February 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM
You would be wrong! He does not live by the name in any way at all. He has even said so in the past when I called him on the hypocrisy of wearing that name and holding his views.
astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM
Exactamundo.
Living in an ultra-right society would give me cause to roll my eyes and snicker sometimes…but compared to the horrors of our coming liberal utopia, I know what I’d pick in a heartbeat.
MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM
So I’m a miscreant and a troll for pointing out the historical fact that gays were marginalized to the point they had to hide their orientation or likely face social and legal ostracization or worse.
I never said anything on this topic whatsoever, but thanks for attributing it to me.
If they are so bad, then don’t recognize them. Just because the state may recognize gay relationships, doesn’t mean you have to accept it as a moral good. There’s a million things our government funds, encourages, or simply allows: Does it mean you agree with every one of them?
I don’t even know what you’re talking about with regard to other children paying to support old gays. Social Security? Hell, there are a lot worse people than old gays on Social Security benefits, but that’s our system. I think individual rights come before some perceived societal ill.
Free Constitution on February 26, 2013 at 3:23 PM
My individual right is to keep the wages of my labor!
My child’s right is to keep the wages of their labor!
Our rights come before the unearned privilege you are demanding be BESTOWED on gays.
I have no problem paying for the military and other constitutional costs of the government. I have a problem paying for other people’s lives. 2010 budget of $3,721B had $1,950B in direct wealth transfers in it. Of which over $1,170B of that was turned into debt.
astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM
I’d like to stop paying for other people’s children, since a good many of them are unwanted mini-Democrats who can barely add 2+2 after 12 years of “publik skool”. Let’s make a deal.
MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM
I concur with you. I never felt any payments from federal government to any individual was ever constitutional. With exceptions of government employees and veterans. I am a veteran, just in case you want to argue bias in favor of myself…
astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM
The only group that deserves subsidies is veterans, and I don’t care who accuses me of being a hypocrite. If you’ve been trained for a job of killing people and wrecking property, sent off God-knows-where, seen friends lose their minds/limbs/life and/or had such happen to you…
Then by everything I hold dear, I swear you have earned – not that you’re entitled to, that you have EARNED – at least some small privileges and repayments.
MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM