Pro-choicers (the ones who campaign for abortion access, not the mushy middle) aren’t very concerned with the idea of missing people the result of abortion. They look at a woman’s situation, consider a myriad different factors and identify that she could do nothing else. The person done away with gets lost in the other factors.
That is (fairly) easy to do in individual circumstances, because the person who is missing is, well, not there, but the woman who remains can tell you about the difficulty of her circumstance.
Not so when nations are faltering because of missing girls. The sheer numbers make it impossible to ignore, made more evident because of the gender imbalance.
Click here to read this fairly in-depth report from the BBC about India’s aborted females.
We’ve heard this story before but I’ll continue to draw attention to it. Because at the end of the day, those of us who are pro-life are saying whether it’s here in Canada or in India, those missing people matter. Not more than the woman who bears them, but in concert with her, they both matter.
We ought to work hard to stop female foeticide, as the article calls it, but in general we ought to work to stop all foeticide. These are the hidden societal ramifications of abortion, and if they don’t show up in the gender imbalance, those ramifications show up in other places.
by 
Very well put, Andrea… as an individual, the unborn child has no voice, but the cumulative effect of so many missing people is becoming impossible to ignore.
while i agree that abortion based on gender discrimination is unfortunately disturbing, that does NOT mean that abortion itself should be to blame for the practice: in fact, what is to blame is the long-standing paternalistic view that males are more important, capable, and valuable than females. this view is DIRECTLY related to your anti-female, anti-choice perspective on abortion: that females should be obligated to give up their body for a clump of cells which drain the woman’s energy until it is expelled (if they grew anywhere but the womb, these cells would be considered like a parasite or a cancer), simply because that is what their body happens to do. that you don’t make this connection is clearly because your beliefs cloud your judgment. women shouldn’t HAVE to have a child simply because we are biologically built to; putting aside the global population issues, wouldn’t you agree that we are living in a time where we are supposed to be educated enough to be able to make informed choices? a parasite is not a child. history, medicine and woman’s myths tell us that until quickening, about 3-4 months after insemination, there is no reason to believe that it is dangerous or immoral to terminate the growth. and that’s all it is – a GROWTH in a woman’s uterus – until it pops its head out and decides to play in the human world. your romantic ideal of having a loving family and enough food to feed every child who is conceived is painfully naive, and ridiculous to try and impose onto others. get your head out of the sand, andrea. i’mma keep trolling you!