160 Million Missing Women

Twenty years later, the number of “missing” women has risen to more than 160 million, and a journalist named Mara Hvistendahl argues most of the missing females weren’t victims of neglect. They were selected out of existence, by ultrasound technology and second-trimester abortion.

Full article on the mass genocide of women in developing countries.

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Amanda M. says:

    Incredible. That’s horrifying.

  2. Virginia says:

    I was reading about this recently. It is a huge problem. From a birth rate perspective, women are more valuable. I would think the desirability of a female would eventually increase after several decades of imbalance.

    However, this is still a real tragedy.

  3. Kennedy says:

    Agreed. Now the question is what (if anything) can be done about it?

  4. Devon Herrick says:

    Those women who are left will become more valuable. Men will have to compete to win a bride or face a lifetime of being alone. Maybe the increase in value will be enough to slow the rate of selective abortions and neglect.

  5. Brian Williams. says:

    It is interesting that this issue doesn’t seem very high on the list for the various rights groups.

  6. Carolyn Needham says:

    I agree with Brian, I’ve read about this before and the issue seems to be ignored. Unfortunately abortion is a lucrative for-profit industry and thus has considerable power.

    It’s all part of the idea that the population is something we should be controlling; it is derived from a deeply misanthropic viewpoint.

    I heard James Delingpole speak today about climate change and much of what he said about the mentality of those involved in pushing the climate agenda reflects the mentality that allows these kinds of things to occur. Delingpole cited the Club of Rome, who phrases it this way, “The earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.”

  7. Anne Alice says:

    I also would like to know — what do you do to change a cultural attitude?

  8. Catherine says:

    I think the final paraagraphs of Mr. Last’s review in the WSJ pinpoints the dilemma better than the article linked in this post. If “choice” is the highest principle, then there’s simply no ground from which to criticize gender selection.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html