Going by the evidence of the graphs there is one easy solution: - an all-out campaign to encourage miscegenation! Gender imbalance and world peace all wrapped up in one tidy package!

*According to many who advocate abortion, the fetus is not human.*

Of course its human, your argument sounds like a strawman, but
its neither a child, nor a person, as claimed by the religious
brigade.

If everyone is selecting for boys, then others will soon twig
that their daughters will thrive and do well, with all that
selection to pick and choose from, out there.

If the parents of the bloggers here were as cold hearted as yourselves it is unlikely any of you would of had to opportunity to voice an opinion. I am glad my parents did not murder me although no doubt some will disagree.

Joseph Chamie paints the gender imbalance as a bad thing, but I don't think the Chinese would see it that way. The whole point of the one child policy was to eliminate population growth. It hasn't done achieved that goal, but it may yet succeed.

Unlike every other country Chine saw the writing on the wall long before they became a net food importer, and did something about it. China had around 550 million people in 1950. Now they have 1.3 billion while usable farm land has dropped by 25%. They have recently become a net food importer, whereas before they were a net exporter. Population is projected to continue increasing for a while. Food output is likely to continue dropping in the face of the retreating Himalayan snow caps, unless technology comes to the rescue.

Lets hope it does. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am cheering them on like crazy to pull it off - become self sufficient in food that is. If they don't the consequences are likely to be very unpleasant, and not only for just the Chinese. If they need food and can't buy it, I suspect they, like every other population in history, will resort to any means required to get it.

In the mean time the current sex ratio, no matter how achieved, is a bonus. Men don't produce kids, women do. The longer the current ratio is maintained the better off they will be in the future. I am sure they are well aware of that.

LOL

I seem to recall posting something similar a few months ago. I'm flattered that Yale has caught up with me.

This is, of course, only the beginning. As techniques for genetic screening improve many foetuses with what parents regard as undesirable traits will be aborted.

Example. There is no such thing as an "intelligence gene." But we may be able to detect genomes – COMBINATIONS of genes – that incline a person to being a bit dim. Would it be right to abort the "perhaps stupid?"

How about aborting foetuses that are "perhaps gay?" Some religions believe in the death penalty for homosexuality so they may be comfortable aborting a perhaps gay foetus even if opposed to abortion in other cases.

You can, of course, legislate all you like. Enforcing such legislation while preserving a woman's freedom to choose is likely to prove a challenge.

I don't think this is about a woman's right to choose, as some might. For what is happening here is a patriarchal custom playing judge, jury and executioner. Sex-selective abortion should be criminalized, whilst still protecting women's rights.