Japan's 18-Year-Olds at Record-Low 1.06 Million on Falling Births 218
The number of 18-year-olds in Japan totaled a record low of 1.06 million as of Monday, a government estimate showed, as the country continues to grapple with a falling birthrate. From a report: The number of those that have reached Japan's legal adult age fell by 60,000 from 2023 and accounted for 0.86% of Japan's total population, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said Sunday. The year 2005, when the new adults were born, had seen the country's total fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman is estimated to bear in her lifetime -- fall to a record-low 1.26, later matched by that of 2022.
I blame porn pixelation (Score:5, Funny)
Time for Japan to reverse its censorship laws in the hentai space. That'll get the locals revved up and ready to procreate! ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I (conditionally) agree! Frustratingly, the hentai space is really indicative of a component of the low birth rate. I think the low birth rate is excellent, and we need to repeat it everywhere, but one of the big reasons for it leads to very unhappy people -- the culture of male dominance and female passivity which, not surprisingly, a little less than 50% of Japan (most of the males) wants to hold on to and a little less than 50% of Japan (most of the females) thinks is terrible. People in the 2nd group
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the opposite... One of the issues they have is young people deciding that relationships are too much work, and that the single life is actually fine. Parasocial relationships with idols, anime characters, and porn are part of the reason why young guys in particular are deciding not to pursue marriage and starting a family.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, single life _is_ actually fine as is life as a couple without wanting children. Unless you desperately want children, that is. Of course, there are complete assholes spouting nonsense like not bowing to biological imperatives is a sign of "immaturity", when obviously the complete opposite is true. Most people have children primarily because they think it is expected of them. Smarter ones always knew this is not a good reason at all and have actually made a decision here forever. The only thing tha
Tis the future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few rhings we need to do is make sure that we'll have a very low birthrate is make it extremely costly to raise kids, diets/lifestyles continue to lower fertility rates and that it's very easy to divorce while we do nothing to combat people's misguided expectations of life and relationships. Actually why not expect people to do extra work hours and at least 4-8 extra years of studies as well? Imagine some stress can come in handy as well.
There is a saying becoming common among men. "The juice is not worth the squeeze", with regards to romantic attachments and coupling with women.
Let us face it - if you marry or even cohabitate, and have children, with the divorce rate such as it is, the woman will file for divorce, and unless she is some manner of drug addict or murderess, she'll get the children and probably the house. So as a male, you are likely going to end up single, yet with the expenses largely what they were when you were marrie
Re:Tis the future (Score:4, Interesting)
This is something I have always heard but when actually looking into a little deeper it's far more complex then it makes it seem. I would agree that there is some inherent bias against men in family court but over the last couple decades it has actually evened out a bit.
The issue of custody for example is selection biased by the fact that many fathers don't actually go after custody of the kids because when they do pursue the fathers actually get it more often than the mothers.
DO YOU THINK MOTHERS `AUTOMATICALLY' GET CUSTODY? THINK AGAIN [chicagotribune.com]
Gender Bias in Divorce: Is it More Difficult for Fathers to Win Child Custody? [bikellaw.com]
Same thing with the house and finances, this is selection biased because in many cases it is the woman who makes a sacrifice to her career and put's it aside to raise the kids so her earning potential is cut short. Combine with with the above fact and you end up with women getting financial support because they are supporting the kids.
Also the vast, vast majority of these divorce proceedings are decided not by a judge but in mediation, the judge just signs off on it.
There is a big problem with divorce rates but the cause is not that we gave women no-fault divorce options, men have to share some of blame because so many even today feel that just providing a paycheck is all they have to contribute to maintain a marriage and, well, it's not the 1950's and the progress women have made is not getting rolled back, ever, so men need to learn to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked with divorced and separated couples on and off for 20+ years, and there's less bias than there was, but the "kids-go-with-mom" mentality is still very much a thing. (I was also a single father with custody so I have a little familiarity with this topic.)
If you're a father and you want custody, you'll have to fight like hell for it, whereas most mothers barely have to open their eyes to automatically be considered the Primary Residential Parent by default.
Yes, it's better than it was but unfortunate
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I understand your point of view than what explains the data we see.
If 90% of divorces are settled out of court why are men so willing to give up custody? Because they're lawyers say they won't win might explain some of it but also I really think a lot of men just don't want it.
I feel like mothers are considered the primary caretaker because... they are often the primary caretaker and are the ones spending the most time with the children. Especially if the mother is someone who put their career on th
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I understand your point of view than what explains the data we see.
If 90% of divorces are settled out of court why are men so willing to give up custody? Because they're lawyers say they won't win might explain some of it but also I really think a lot of men just don't want it.
I feel like mothers are considered the primary caretaker because... they are often the primary caretaker and are the ones spending the most time with the children. Especially if the mother is someone who put their career on the sidelines to have kids they show they are motivated to take care of the kids.
To be clear I am not saying there isn't a bias in the system, but I think it goes a bit further into the culture than "courts hate men"
I also understand this is a difficult thing to get clean data out of, there's a ton of conjecture everywhere about it.
I think that you believe at best, only a tiny bias - Things like the "tender years" doctrine, and the "best interests of the child", not only give the mother legal preference, but even the ex husband having to support children she had with another man after they were divorced. https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
Then there is the fact that for identical crimes, men get longer sentences. But since we stepped into the legal system, here we go.
The most amusing version of this is a woman who had her boyfrien
Re: (Score:2)
I worked with divorced and separated couples on and off for 20+ years, and there's less bias than there was, but the "kids-go-with-mom" mentality is still very much a thing. (I was also a single father with custody so I have a little familiarity with this topic.)
If you're a father and you want custody, you'll have to fight like hell for it, whereas most mothers barely have to open their eyes to automatically be considered the Primary Residential Parent by default.
Yes, it's better than it was but unfortunately that's not saying a lot.
The tender years doctrine is still real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It has been gradually replaced by the "best for the child" doctrine, which is the situation where the woman can have a child with another man while married, yet upon divorce, the cuckhold husband will be required to support a child that is not his. And has been expanded to force men to support children she had by another man after they divorced https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
So yeah - men have all the advantages, in marriage.
Re: (Score:2)
men have to share some of blame because so many even today feel that just providing a paycheck is all they have to contribute to maintain a marriage and, well, it's not the 1950's and the progress women have made is not getting rolled back, ever, so men need to learn to adapt.
And they have adapted, quite efficiently. Avoiding the entanglements and marriage is a pretty good way to adapt.
Women can now support themselves - no man is needed at all for anything, not a paycheck, not even to be fathers - sperm donors can be found at the nearest club or on Tinder. So why would a man adapt to marry and have children?
Re: (Score:2)
Look if you don't care about marriage and children, that's your prerogative, don't bother with it, go do your thing.
But it's obvious quite a few men want to have families and be in committed relationships. Call it biological urges, societal pressure, whatever you want but most people want to have a partner in life and lots of those people want to start families.
If that's your goal and you are a man holding out hopes to find your ideal 1950's tradcon housewife, well, good luck out there but you'll find many
Re: (Score:2)
Look if you don't care about marriage and children, that's your prerogative, don't bother with it, go do your thing.
I do care, your assumption is false. FWIW, I've been married 46 years now. Have one child.
But it's obvious quite a few men want to have families and be in committed relationships.
Not a problem for them as long as they accept any and all risks inherent in modern marriages. The statistics are out there for all to see. Some people don't like others interrupting their narrative with stats, but that's okay too. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, be it trickle down theory, flat earth, or the feminist ideal that there are no differences between penis bearers and birthing persons.
Call it biological urges, societal pressure, whatever you want but most people want to have a partner in life and lots of those people want to start families.
If that's your goal and you are a man holding out hopes to find your ideal 1950's tradcon housewife, well, good luck out there but you'll find many women today are looking for something more than in the past out of their partners.
Ah yes - wel
Re: (Score:2)
The statistics are out there for all to see.
Yeah, and i brought some. Congrats on your successful marriage but anecdotes are just that. I didn't bring my marriage up as an example because that's silly when talking about broad trends in modern day.
Just kidding - you have different rules for different sexes.
Maybe, I thinkw e all do because the sexes are in fact different, but I haven't brought up women's roles. But you are the one who made the claim "juice ain't worth the squeeze" which is doing that exact thing as well. You are assigning blame, I am just saying it's bit more complex than that.
silly and inhuman males are increasingly checking out of the system
Yeah, it's a
Re: (Score:2)
"50% divorce rate" tells us nothing. The majority of all relationships don't work, the question is "why do they end up in divorce"
Also 50% divorce rate does not mean women get 50% of everything every time. Of those 50% only 10% end up requesting alimony and even less actually get it.
Having to pay child support is not "woman gets 50%", its your kid too.
If both people make an equal amount of money and have careers then it's generally an even split.
The passport thing is so dumb and such a tiny sliver of thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear more and more people who do not want kids for environmental reasons. They fear their kids would have no future.
I think that is an excuse people use. If you think that children today have no future, you 'd be surprised at how people procreated in the past with world wars, deadly diseases, with no cure. Today, children have to fear not finding a passion and bullies on social media. The las part is sarcasm, the first is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah a bunch of peasants with malnourishment, fetal alcohol, and religion induced brain dysfunctions managed to find a few minutes to fuck in the middle of a warzone during a plague.
Well I’m convinced time to pop out 12 baby trolls.
I'm of the opinion that the harder the times or greater the need causes people to procreate more and faster.
We wouldn't be here as a species if we decided that some saber tooth tiger was going to decimate the village, and it caused us to give up on sex.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that there are multiple reasons why people in hard times have more children.
One is that there probably is not much else to do for fun if you are really poor and access to contraceptives may not be that great (especially in the past).
Another possible reason is child labor. For people in a village, a child very quickly turns into a helper - a few years old child can feed the chickens, remove weeds and so on. As the child gets older, the responsibilities increase and include taking care of the younger
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure environmental issues aren't going to slow down conservatives in the least. Given that 80% of people vote the same way their parents did, I suspect we're in for some amusing election results in about 18 years.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY: "... they know their kids would have no future...".
It's fine (Score:3)
Really, it's fine. Check periodically for environmental toxins that could be causing fertility issues, check periodically for social issues that could be involved, correct them if you feel it's worth it.
But so long as efforts are made to support a society with an age distribution weighted towards the elderly (resulting in a lower supply of working-age people and specifically elder support workers), there's nothing particularly wrong with a declining population. We have one here in Canada but we're addicted to eternal economic growth built on population so we shore up the difference with immigration.
When I was a kid you could afford a waterfront cottage and you could get to it. Now that's a dream for the rich, and even they have to spend half of Saturday (or worse, Friday night) getting there in traffic that's more like a parking lot than a roadway and spend the last half of Sunday getting back. And of course we're building on all the nicest land just making the issue worse. Tell me how the world would be WORSE for the next generation with more infrastructure and resources and space for them?
As long as Japan has enough people to keep the nation viable at all, let the population shrink.
It's not about a viable Nation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"When I was a kid you could afford a waterfront cottage and you could get to it. Now that's a dream for the rich,"
This is a simple and expected dynamic of population increases.
There are more people, so more rich people.
There are only so many waterfront cottages, and rich people like them.
Therefore, the rich will own all of the waterfront cottages.
This also explains the traffic.
It's just the world we live in. Our children won't remember the waterfront cottage visits, they will have other memories.
I've expos
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its the Govenments around the world FREAKING out and here's why: the entirety of capitalism is a Pyramid scheme, where you need growth of population and taxes to fund the retiring. So the system collapses in on itself when the next generation don't do enough baby making. The whole system collapses either way because unlimited growth is unsustainable, but it collapses sooner if people live within their means and dont pump out those extra workforce babies.
Sad but true. Capitalist governments around t
Re: (Score:2)
>the entirety of capitalism is a Pyramid scheme
I would say capitalism is a variant of the Prosperity Gospel, used by those with wealth to keep the poor poor and working for them as they accumulate ever more wealth. Government pensions and healthcare for elderly citizens are the pyramid scheme, but those aren't fundamental to capitalism.
Having said that, I do believe that regulated capitalism including a wealth tax is probably the best economic system we have come up with so far. We just can't seem to i
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah i probably should have been less hyperbolic and stated its mostly a problem in the implementation of social security net of modern societies and has less to do with capitalism and democracy as even China has the same issues with ageing populations. But still my more reasoned point is there should be a way to deal with it more rationally than just haveing governments put incentives in place for people to have more babies (or like in china forced breeding programs: https://www.business-standard.... [business-standard.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
> I would say capitalism is a variant of the Prosperity Gospel
You are a fucking lunatic and need to have your head examined.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that an ageing population needs care and pensions, which puts more burden on the working age ones. The retirees were promised all that, they feel that they worked hard to earn it and are entitled to it. But they also created a country where having a family is too expensive, but they will never accept it's their fault. Easier to blame feckless, lazy young people, and mobile phones.
You cannot force women to have kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But sure you can. Kill all programs that tell them how to avoid getting pregnant and once they are, force them to have the kid.
Not that I'd say you should, but look around yourself (provided you're in a red state in the US), you should be able to see first hand that yes, you can indeed force women to have kids.
Re: You cannot force women to have kids (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No need to. People will have sex no matter what.
That's what religion is about. Control the most powerful urge a human has, and shame them for having it, then tell them that they have to bow down to you and beg for your forgiveness to have it. That's basically the business they're in.
What makes you think (Score:2)
The problem is if you do that your productivity collapses and you're in no better shape than if you didn't do it in the first place.
The nut that every single ruling class is trying to crack is how to get women to crank out babies while working so much that they don't ever actually get to see the babies the
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't think they'll find a way to do it but they're going to do a lot of stupid and nasty things trying to find it before we come to our senses and stop letting them make decisions about our lives
Eliminate welfare, social security, such that the only "welfare" you can rely on is a large family.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so sure it's the women making these decisions? Seems like a lot of men these days are the roadblocks to parenthood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alarming? The only alarming thing I can see is how they're artificially kept alive and allowing that money their kids need to be siphoned away by corporations prolonging their useless existence.
Knew this 17.9 years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Crisis! (Score:2)
Oh noes, technology is making workers more productive whilst overpopulation is straining natural resources! And now this, a falling birthrate! Disaster!
Still a world record high (Score:2)
Nevertheless, the population of the world is still a record high, at 8 billion https://fox8.com/news/world-po... [fox8.com] and growing,
and the U.S. population is growing by one person every 24 seconds https://www.npr.org/2024/01/01... [npr.org]
(partly immigration, but with one birth every 9.0 seconds and one death every 9.5 seconds https://www.axios.com/2023/12/... [axios.com] we're growing even without immigration).
Here's an idea (Score:2)
Re: Here's an idea (Score:2)
Evolution at work (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who don't breed won't produce any like them.
I do see some parents who should have kids - they're great parents. We should have more people like them.
Unfortunately they seem to be a minority. I think what will happen is the irresponsible ones will continue to dominate - it's easier to pop out kids, not be able to feed them and then ask others to help (go look at those sponsor a child sites, look at the children info/details and you'd see plenty of irresponsible/evil parents).
Much of the suffering in this world is and has been because of irresponsible people who breed without being able to feed and raise their children properly.
Tribal instincts receding. (Score:2)
You need tribal instincts and natural / biological sex roles to produce a replacement rate of babies. Those instincts vanished with the birth of widespread hedonistic consumer culture in the 70ies and the rise of industrial abundance. That has spread around the globe and is still spreading.
As soon as basic societal mechanisms aren't the natural mode of interaction for humans they appear to unlearn/forget how to mate and recognize the value of offspring and family. That's what it looks like to me.
Given the d
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the current trend is that the world is rapidly becoming increasingly Muslim:
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infogr... [statcdn.com]
That said, extrapolation is a risky business. Cle
Lots of Japanese in Canada (Score:2)
We were overpopulated 55 years ago, but now . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just Japan, the underpopulation crises is hitting many nations. It is even used as an excuse to flood nations with immigrants who have values antithetical to those of the current population.
When the popular book "The Population Bomb" came out, over 55 years ago, the world population was about 3.5 billion and we were way overpopulated. Now the world population is about 8 billion and we are underpopulated. Care to do the math?
I am old enough to remember public service commercials that had messages like: "the easiest way to fight the population crises, is to have smaller families." It was about that time that China started their "one child per family" policy.
It's my understanding that, before 1945, Japan was desperate to acquire new territories because they believed their island nation to be overpopulated. I wonder what Japan's population was then, as compared to today?
Possible solution (Score:2)
My friend Ripley says that one possible solution is —and hear me out— to take off and nuke the planet from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be sure.
Education (Score:3)
I think a big issue is education. People like some sequenced structure in their lives. First you finish your education, then you establish your career, then you get married, then you have kids.
When people only got a high school degree you stepped right out into a career, and then it was natural to get married in your early twenties and start having kids by your mid-twenties.
Undergraduate education pushes that back 4 years and grad school 2-8 years. A lot of folks aren't really settled until their early to mid thirties. For men they're kinda settled at the idea of just a couple kids (replacement level) at that point. For women, they're starting to run into fertility issues.
There's two ways to get around this:
1) Stop educating women (and some men). The fundies loves this but most others don't.
2) Find ways to make it easier for women to have children before they're finished their education.
#2 is one of the big reasons that the taboos against out-of-wedlock children have declined, because people recognize that it might be one of the only ways for many folks to have children.
It's (Mostly) Not About Finances (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For half of people, a full-time job won't provide a house: That's the first disincentive to wanting a family. Next is massive urbanization and long work-days: These are not new but young people are waiting until their living conditions improve, before starting a family.
Young women no longer talk about having a family: That's feminism and prioritizing their career. Plus, they see a culture where children require much more supervision while there is also less time for child-rearing because both parents
Re:It's (Mostly) Not About Finances (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that is your personal experience. The reason that you and your wife don't want a kid isn't necessarily the same reason why other people aren't having kids. The fact that you even have a wife puts you a lot closer to having children than many others since marriage rates are also falling. So are the rates of dating and sex. Those people aren't reproducing if they're not even dating and/or hooking up, regardless of their financial situations.
You are not everyone. The article I linked and the countless similar articles I've read which all state that financial incentives aren't increasing reproductive rates, along with the falling rates of dating and sex, are the reasons why I believe that the problem for most people goes far beyond finances.
Jan 1: Powerful quake rocks Japan (Score:2)
As a father of 5 in Canada (Score:2)
Kanamara Matsuri festival not working? (Score:2)
It's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Who is this "they" you speak of? And the answer is that the Japanese should stop working long hours, just like the good old days? You sound well informed.
Re: (Score:2)
Counterpoint. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lower population frees up housing, reduces stress on planet, ensures jobs all around.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It increases pay for labor. That's why it's roundly hated by governments and the monied class which run them.
The entire planet should have negative birth rate, and we should keep that up for 100+ years. It solves a vast number of problems.
Re: Counterpoint. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's always a bright side. But if you're too focused on the bright side there's stuff that will blindside you because you've been ignoring it. Usually that's environmental impact, but declining population while good for some things comes with serious economic downsides. Basically it's easiest to run an economy that works for most people if your population is growing modestly but steadily. Population decline comes with a lot of tricky problems.
The big problem for Japan is going to be the aging p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Counterpoint. (Score:4, Informative)
Perfect, then what are we talking about it, it's already happening so can everyone just stop staying this and focus on things like you mentioned that also actually help people instead.
Estimate are on the current trajectory we are going to plateau in population by the 2060's and decline by 2100 and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I just blockade the developing nations
That does not work.
Earth overpopulation and resource mismanagement like growing food using fossil fertilizers are global problems by nature.
In developing nations they still have high births (Score:2)
In order to maintain productivity you have to send women into the workforce and to do that you have to educate them and once you do that they demand access to birth control and civil rights and down goes your birth rate.
We've seen
Re: (Score:2)
Well, looking around the planet, taking power away from the people didn't exactly result in any utopias lately either.
But it sure crashed the birth rates...
Solving overpopulation (Score:2)
>>Their birth rates will crash along with the rest of everyone else's in about 10 to 20 years depending on the country.
Nice. Solving overpopulation by pulling people out of poverty.
>> In order to maintain productivity
No need for stinking productivity. Stop that B.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that they're the ones having the babies, who do you suggest stops having them? The nations with collapsing populations?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody, if we continue to trade with and not get in the way of developing nations, well, developing then the problem sorts itself out as we have seen in every single country so far that grows it's populations wealth.
In the 21st century countries do not have any direct agency over another countries birth rates. They did in the past, it was called war and genocide so unless we want to go back to that. Even within ones own country attempts to increases birth rates (Mussolini) or decrease (one child in China)
Re:The problem they're having (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who want there to be more babies do not want to pay for those babies.
"I want you to make babies, and I want you to pay the costs of raising them at your own expense."
In any other context this would be absurd. I must pay for the things I want. Including shared benefits like clean air or good infrastructure or whatever. Its my tax dollars that pay for the things I want. But here, it is ok for me to want something and to expect someone else to bear the entire cost of it. Because love or duty or some other silly thing is supposed to motivate them to do this at no cost to me.
Well, it's not working. It was never going to work and it never will work. Demanding, blaming, and shaming will never succeed in getting the population up. One must erect a legal, cultural, and financial system that supports family, in order for their to be family. That costs money. If it is not spent, the babies will not appear.
Option B is to structure a society that can thrive with a lower population. That's hard and expensive too, but certainly better in many ways. Personally that's the one I am rooting for, but I can't see the future.
There is option C (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: There is option C (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this isn't "obviously what his happening." In particular, the statement "it is not about moral it is about imposing reproduction on women even if they don't want it." This statement is not only accusatory but plainly false, at least in America. I cannot speak for any other country though.
But in America the conservative position is that abortion is murder and therefore wrong. Their motivation is not "we hate women and we want women to have no rights." Half of conservatives are women! And support for anti-abortion is evenly split between the genders, according to poll data. They are motivated by their belief that protecting the life of the unborn child is the right thing to do.
Of course, many liberals disagree. They don't consider it to be a person yet, so there is nothing to protect. So they have a huge difference of opinion on this. Who is right? I am not taking a position. I AM, however, making it clear that the reason why conservatives oppose abortion is moral in nature. Accurate or not, they see themselves as protecting the lives of defenseless babies, and that's what's motivating them. They are not interested in limiting women's rights for the sake of limiting women's rights. It just so happens that the only way to protect babies from abortion is to limit women's rights, so that's what they push for politically.
I DO agree that religious beliefs are a significant motivator of this perspective. And I DO agree that religion is superstition. But that still doesn't change their motivations. They see it as a right-to-life issue, not as some twisted opportunity to oppress women for the sake of oppressing women.
And that gross misrepresentation of what is motivating half the country is the reason the parent post got modded down.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But in America the conservative position is that abortion is murder and therefore wrong. Their motivation is not "we hate women and we want women to have no rights."
If you don't think conservatives hate and fear women, you're either lying or you've not been paying attention. The deliberate cruelty baked into their beliefs, and more importantly, into their legislation is a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"the woman had a clear medical reason for seeking an abortion, but the doctors denied it anyway." This is false. Very
Re: (Score:2)
But in America the conservative position is that abortion is murder and therefore wrong.
No, the "conservative" position is whatever will get them the most votes. Considering the number of "conservatives" who have their mistresses [theguardian.com], girlfriends [npr.org], daughters, and wives get abortions, their stance has nothing to do about "murder".
Their motivation is not "we hate women and we want women to have no rights."
Would you like to try again [rollingstone.com]? They're defunding women's health clinics [pbs.org] everywhere they can, even if it mean
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
You have made two unrelated statements and tried to conflate them.
You have stated several political actions, and then you have stated a motivation for them. The statements of the actions themselves are facts, but YOUR statements about WHY those actions are being pushed forward are nothing more than YOUR failed attempts at mind-reading!
I understand that you disagree with the agendas being pushed. OK. That disagreement does not give you some sort of magical insight into the minds of the people pushing the agendas that would give you a leg to stand on when you try to say that their reasons for it are something different than what they say those reasons are!
We can break it down just like you did:
Considering the number of "conservatives" who have their mistresses [theguardian.com], girlfriends [npr.org], daughters, and wives get abortions, their stance has nothing to do about "murder".
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You have posted some examples of conservatives going against the conservative position and seeking abortions. So those conservatives are being total hypocrites. That is a character flaw and a moral failing. But it does not, in any way, mean that their motivation is "oppression of women." Evidence that some, or even many, conservatives don't put their money where their mouth is is NOT evidence that those conservatives are motivated by a desire to oppress women.
Do you see how that works? This distinction is critical. You have completely failed to present any evidence at all that conservatives are motivated by hatred of women, even though you have shown that at least some of them are weak willed in their beliefs (incidentally, it is ALSO true that some conservatives support abortion. They are in the minority, but they support it, and so that group aren't even being hypocrites.)
Your Rolling stone [rollingstone.com] article is exactly the same. It is about specific actions conservatives are taking to stop abortion. It shows that this group really wants to stop abortion. It does NOT show ANYTHING about their reasons why. There is not a single quote in the entire article about why they are pushing so hard. YOU are ASSUMING that the only possible reason would be cruelty. That assumption is in YOUR mind, not theirs! The actual motivation, as has been publicly stated many times by conservative groups, is to protect infant lives. It completely explains every action being taken in that article.
You even stated "based on supposed religious beliefs." Those religious beliefs are not "women should not have any rights." Nor is it "women are hateful, and we hate them." Do I need to go so far as to give bible quotes about how husbands are supposed to cherish their wives? Christianity does not teach hatred of women, it never did, just ask any of the millions of women who practice the religion!
Everything else you posted follows the same pattern. You are looking at political actions that you don't like. It's ok that you don't like them. But nothing in them is evidence of hatred of women.
It IS true that the conservative's method of protecting children involves denying women the right to abort. That IS a taking-away of a set of rights from women. There is no disagreement on those objective facts. But your insistence that the reason why they want to take these rights away is because they hate women and enjoy being cruel to them is not only ludicrous, but utterly unsupported by anything you have offered as evidence.
And this matters: your adamant insistence that "the other side is evil and that's it" makes any actual productive conversation impossible. You just stir up hatred and rage and false judgements when we should instead be talking about science, compassion, and freedom, in an attempt to win hearts and minds. If you were to engage with a group of conservatives and open
Re: There is option C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Things like school lunch programs, after school programs, pre-K and child daycare availability, SNAP,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong! Most people who are anti-abortion also demand the death penalty: It's not morality, it's deciding the right time to commit murder.
Anti-abortion people also claim it's not their job to provide for the baby that a pregnant women also does not want. A self-defeating position and denying responsibility because the result isn't wilful murder, shows little value for life.
Babies also need protection from disease and malnutrition. The USA has the highest infant-mortality in the OECD: There's no religiou
Re: (Score:2)
If conservatives who oppose abortion really cared then they would promote sex education and contraception.
It's not that liberals don't think it's a person (Score:2)
Think of it this way if I needed a kidney could I force you to donate one? From a statistical standpoint donating a kidney has fewer negative health outcomes then giving birth to a healthy baby.
This is not to say there isn't some debate over when a fetus becomes a person but there's absolutely no need to have that debate and not come to the conclusion that the woma
Re: (Score:2)
I AM, however, making it clear that the reason why conservatives oppose abortion is moral in nature. Accurate or not, they see themselves as protecting the lives of defenseless babies, and that's what's motivating them.
If they showed the same morality in making sure all babies get affordable care, education, etc until they are legally an adult, I think I will agree.
From my understanding they are only interested until the baby is born, After that they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Option B is to structure a society that can thrive with a lower population. That's hard and expensive too, but certainly better in many ways. Personally that's the one I am rooting for, but I can't see the future.
This is a problem all first world nations will have to solve eventually. If Japan solves it first (and they will, by necessity), they're going to be at a distinct advantage, aren't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Birth rates in the US are falling in large part because of the dissolution of the nuclear family. The advent of birth control and the following sexual freedom had long reaching affect on pair-bonding that is only now being understood. The US leads the world in single-mother households at 23.9%; in the black community it's over 70%. Meanwhile, marriages are a punitive contract that women are financially rewarded for breaking.
Layered on top of that is a collapsing social security system that originated wit
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. Nobody has ever wanted to pay for someone else's children. And historically they haven't.
Two hundred years ago, people were willingly raising families of 3+ kids in households with no power or running water, and no guarantee that future generations would have it any better. Now you're suggesting that people should be paid to raise children when conditions are much better.
Re: The problem they're having (Score:2)
Option B is to structure a society that can thrive with a lower population.
Why should that be difficult? Society functioned just fine when here were fewer people. At most, the transition to a lower population might be tricky, since there will be disproportionately many older people.
Reducing the overall population would solve many, many problems.
Re: The problem they're having (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What they can do is establish branches of Chinese industry in low wage countries whose governments are in debt to them.
Re:The problem they're having (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say more due to Japan becoming poorer, rather than people being overworked. Young people are leaving to get better jobs overseas, and people are choosing not to have kids they can't afford.
The global economy is basically a Ponzi scheme, with richer countries getting rich at the expense of poorer ones whose cheap labor they exploit. The trouble is as you get to the top of the pyramid, and have gutted your own economy by outsourcing everything, then where do you go from there? Where's the thriving middle class (whose jobs you've exported) to buy your own high priced goods? They are of necessity going to buy what they can afford - made in China goods from Walmart, etc.
The problem gets worse for those at the top as the developing countries improve their skills and go from manufacturing for the rich to their own brands making their own high quality goods, thereby competing with the countries who had previously used them as a source of cheap labor.
I remember growing up in the 70's when "Made in Japan" meant cheap and nasty, but they rapidly improved and got a reputation for high quality and expensive goods (cameras, electronics).
America is lucky in that despite having followed the same path of self-destruction via gloabalization and outsourcing - serving the needs of corporate profits rather than the American people - the global reserve status of the petro-dollar has created an artificial demand for the US dollar and is propping up US trade and immigration. The US still seems hell-bent on destroying whatever it left of it's economy though - having exported all of it's middle class jobs is now in final stages of exporting all of it's tech jobs too. We'll soon become a nation of nurses and janitors, and tradesmen, where the only safe jobs are ones that HAVE to be performed on US soil.
As the US dollar continues to decline in dominance, the US will follow in path of Japan as a formerly wealthy country in decline (a trend that really started 20-30 years ago or more).
This will sort itself, in time (Score:2)
I'd say more due to Japan becoming poorer, rather than people being overworked.
This is for the US, but I assume the situation is similar in Japan.
A woman's child bearing years are from ages 14 to 30. At age 30, 10% of couples cannot have a child after a year of trying, and the statistics get worse after that.
You can put the endpoints anywhere you like, but the same analysis will apply. The age 30 endpoint is more-or-less arbitrary.
A woman having a child before age 18 (highschool, in the US) is considered a bad thing, for excellent reasons.
College experience is required for many jobs,
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing also turns on salaries that are paid for jobs. In the 1950's, a man holding a single job could afford a wife, kids, and a house. Then the number of workers skyrocketed and it was a buyers market and real wages fell - it now takes 2 incomes for married people just to get by, and in certain areas of the country owning a home is not an affordable option.
With the population decline, we're right now seeing roughly a 1:1 ratio of jobs to people, and with our population collapse you will eventually see real wages going up. Eventually couples will get back to where 1 income can support a family, and we'll be back to the situation of the 1950's.
Ebb and flow, the low birth rate problem will eventually sort itself out.
Flag as Inappropriate
Well, that's quite an optimistic outlook - that a labor shortage will raise wages to point where quality of life improves.
I'm not so optimistic - why would the outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing stop, why would companies stop lobbing for cheap immigrant labor (H1-B visas) rather than paying better salaries to attract domestic talent and kids taking STEM/CS degrees ?
Our economy is screwed up in so many different ways - not just the direct effects of globalization, but also a crippling national debt seemin