For me, abortion – like other ethical issues – is something that I look at more academically than viscerally, except when it affects those in my care. In part, this is a result of my tertiary studies in ethics and an understanding of ethics as a matter of rational choice (conscience, from a theological perspective). I think this review and book make a point about the consequences of the use of abortion as social engineering. I don’t think anyone seriously (well, outside the Catholic hierarchy) argues with the perspective that it is a significant issue for women and women’s rights, but I think the book suggests that the matter has been hijacked for motives that are neither ethical nor beneficial to human flourishing. The reviewer is obviously a strong advocate for restrictions on abortion and the author of the text is obviously fearful for a loss of women’s rights, but I wonder if the real issue is whether the Malthusians and materialists who drive this policy in East and West consider the unworthiness of their motives?

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that’s as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China’s and India’s populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion.

via Book Review: Unnatural Selection – WSJ.com.