So while we would be well advised to discuss such stuff as widely as possible with a view to educating and improving our faculties of moral and ethical judgment the absolute last thing we should ever do is place such issues in the arena of polls and gladiator politics for any sort of input or decision.
And the first element of improving your judgment comes from improving the question you are asking, whether you're asking yourself but most certainly if you're posing it to others.
Regarding this particular question what possible interest or concern can the sexual preferences of someone else rightfully be? The only thing that justify such concerns—to varying degrees—are you regret not to be their chosen one, or to be their chosen one, or that their choice involves someone unable to respond independently, such as a child, or someone incapacitated, forced or improperly influenced. The genders have zero to do with any of that.
The question, is this grounds for abortion thus has no real purpose, the real question should be would you abort a child you would not properly raise or support. If you would not, justify your choice. And of course the concomitant social policy must be to ensure that prospective parennts are equipped and supported to make such decisions wisely and well for the benefit of the child they will raise, or will not. Forcing them to or forbidding them from just ensures chil;dren will have and botch the raising of children. Who will still mistake what the real questions are.
Stats and poll numbers have nothing to do with that. Morals and ethics are not quantities. Stats are for marketing. And for the greedy people who think politics is about winning rather than what's best for the polity.
