* * * * *
                                        
                            Unintended consequences
                                        
I'm not here to make a moral judgement one way or the other, but I would like
to point towards some unintended consequences. Point A:

> How many babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome (DS) are aborted in
> the United States each year? Well, we don’t know. …
> 
> A new study conducted by Gert de Graaf, Frank Buckley, and Brian Skotko and
> recently published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics [Read the
> full article for the full reference. — Editor] applies rigorous statistical
> modeling to diverse data sets in an attempt to provide the most accurate
> number possible. It is important to know over time what impact relatively
> new noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) technologies, only available
> since October 2011, will have on the already high termination rate after a
> prenatal diagnosis of DS.
> 
> …
> 
> **The net result of their research is that abortion after prenatal
> diagnosis has reduced the population of individuals living with DS in the
> U.S. by approximately 30%.** [Emphasis in original article and was not
> added here. —Editor] This should not be confused with the percentage of
> women who abort following a prenatal diagnosis. That number would certainly
> be higher. This reflects the overall reduction in the DS population, and
> takes into consideration total DS pregnancies, whether prenatally diagnosed
> or not. The authors state that prior to October 2011 and the availability
> of NIPS, about 72% of women elected to have traditional prenatal screens
> and only an estimated maximum of 2% went on to have invasive diagnostic
> procedures, i.e., amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. If prenatal
> screening becomes more widely available, as seems to be happening, then one
> would expect the number of terminations to increase.
> 

“New Study: Abortion after Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome Reduces Down
Syndrome Community by Thirty Percent | Charlotte Lozier Institute [1]”

Point B:

> A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay brothers, including sets of twins,
> has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The
> study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human
> genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on
> chromosome 8.
> 

“Largest study of gay brothers homes in on 'gay genes' - New Scientist [2]”

The path (aka (also known as) the “punchline”):

> If people are born gay or transgender, Santorum posited, “it leads to a
> whole bunch of other situations,” like sex-selective abortions, for
> example.
> 
> “So if you can determine whether one of your children is gay, should we
> pass a law saying you can’t abort a child because you found out that
> child’s going to be gay? You can’t abort a child because you found out that
> child was going to be a woman? How would you feel about a law like that?”
> he asked Maddow.
> 

“Rick Santorum: I've met people who are no longer gay - Nick Gass - POLITICO
[3]”

I won't claim I came up with this—that goes to Bruce Carroll [4] (link via
Instapundit [5]). And I'm only bringing this up because some people are so
blind to their own viewpoints they don't consider the ramifications of their
myopic view.

[1] https://www.lozierinstitute.org/new-study-abortion-after-prenatal-
[2] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-
[3] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rick-santorum-gays-rachel-maddow-
[4] http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245379-happens-science-allows-us-
[5] http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-

Email Sean Conner at sean@conman.org

.