Freakonomics posits the significant statistical decline in crime rates in the US to the legalization of abortion, among other things. There is a lively discussion about the validity of the data, but something has surely happened in the US. The emasculation of the male, and its role in social engineering, is the topic of another post, but suffice to say that strong male role models are not abundant in the laboratories of American social development, aka academia.
Thus, this ominous bit of information provides grist for the mill for those who proclaim the inevitable decline of Western values, and the good that will come of it.
The widespread use of sonogram technology–coupled with liberal
abortion laws–has made it possible for women to identify the sex of
their child so that those with a Y chromosome can be killed before
they’re even born. Last year, in a speech before the U.N., demographer Nicholas Eberstadt revealed the details of this frightening trend:Over the past five years the American public has received
regular updates on what we have come to call “the global war on
terror”. A no-less significant global war—a war, indeed, against
nature, civilization, and in fact humanity itself has also been
underway in recent years. This latter war, however, has attracted much
less attention and comment, despite its immense consequence. This
world-wide struggle might be called” The Global War Against Baby
Girls”.The effects of this war on girls can be seen in the changes in the
sex ratios at birth. Eberstadt explains that there is a "slight but
constant and almost unvarying excess of baby boys over baby girls born
in any population." The number of baby boys born for every hundred baby
girls, which is so constant that it can "qualify as a rule of nature",
falls along an extremely narrow range along the order of 103, 104, or
105. On rare occasions it even hovers around 106
This causes your scribe to ask several questions:
- First, should the feminist activists be concerned that the right to choose is serving as the agent of their demise in certain parts of the world?
- Second, as we, in the US, reduce the numbers of testosterone capable citizens, while our challengers in the East produce more and more males, are we putting ourselves in a demographic hole?
Agricola 
The natural birth rate pretty much hovers around 51% male, 49% female, with the slight variations that will happen in any population from time to time. But overall, it remains at that ratio.
Which is why the unnaturally high birth rates mentioned in the linked article are so disturbing. Eastern societies, which prize sons over daughters, are de-selecting daughters! We/they are upsetting the natural selection/re-generation of our species through technology! I hope it frightens you as much as it frightens me.
Yes, I think people should stop messing with all sorts of natural balances, not just babies. But why does part of what you quoted say that babies with the Y chromosome can be “killed before they are born”? Male is XY, female is XX. It was confusing. I know that China is beginning to address the issue, which was fueled by their one child laws. They are beginning to see the effects now that all those selected males don’t have women to marry.
Let me see, the (Red) People’s Republic of China’s been waging a war, almost to the point of ethnic cleansing, on baby girls, which seem slightly more heinous than sub-Saharan Africa’s cultural mutilation of girls in some regions. How arrogant are we to claim the lead in this ethnic cleasning (if you will indulge ethnicity to encompass specific genetic code)?
On second thought, the segment of our would be population being aborted tends to be of Western European ancestry, thus the politically correct are going to be on the horns of a dilemma here… I’ll anticipate the argument that if the babies being aborted are white, including Latinos, although it is within the artifice of a “war on baby girls”, in the US and not ethnic cleansing and on the doctrine of moral equivalency, the PRC’s population control also is not ethnic cleansing.
Anyone up to equivocate over the implications of a “gay gene” in this mindless philosopher’s mix?