The Economist takes note of the world’s missing women in a manner not unlike my story called Canada’s Lost Daughters.
Must say I never expected this from the Economist. Neither would I expect their insertion of a poignant picture of little pink shoes.
by 
I guess the point the Economist is making is that aborting too many girls is something that shouldn’t happen. So, the logic in this is there is an optimum number?
Another article
http://www.economist.com/world/international/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15636231
The worldwide war on baby girls
Mar 4th 2010
From The Economist print edition
Did any one else predict the outcome of the ‘one child’ policy?
I suppose what’s not surprising is that the Economist dwells on the impact ON SOCIETY of femicide. ‘How will that impact our lives, and how can government ensure that there isn’t an inconvenient imbalance in the killing of boys and girls.’ They suggest education, anti-discrimination and human rights campaigns. (‘Please make sure that you kill boys too’…)
Yeah. That’ll work.
Perhaps this is not PC, but I think maybe a surge in Christianity might be helpful.
While it’s not exactly an anti-abortion article, I’m still pleased to see publications like The Economist talking about the gender ratio and abortion. If they can discount this reason for abortion, maybe they can get started on the others, like lack of resources and discrimination. As Andrea quoted in her article, ARC feels “Being pro-choice means supporting a woman’s right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy for whatever reason, even if one personally does not agree with her reason”. Chipping away at that logic is a good place to start? Women certainly can’t support aborting female fetuses BECAUSE they are female… can they?