A non-ideological, belief, moralized take on a church's behavior, I'll discuss it in terms of welfare (QoL, mental health etc.), which is a universally appreciated term.

I've came across a church account on Instagram.

They've convinced, probably religiously, a troubled (by troubled it probably meant financially troubled) single mother to give up abortion of her kid and also convinced the mother to join church.

The comments are polarized. Some say they're ruining her life. Some say it's saving a life. What line should be drawn that these church people are ruining her life, and when they aren't? I would say it depends on what they do, magnitude of support offered, not just money, but also all factors contributing to LR welfare.

And I believe it is true that, realistically, for most scenarios, the church, in some degree, is still 'ruining her life' (it means net negative LR welfare) Here are some reasons I constructed:

1. Most church people, the ones who convinced her are not very wealthy. They have their own family to feed, much less offering support for another marginal child and mother.

2. The church is heavily ideology-filled, they might offer some help, but humans are realistic - to convince her, they must've used theological reasons to convince her:

God will help....

God will provide...

The church will...

All of these partially lead to self deception. 

|Perceived support/welfare - Reality|↑↑↑.

Also no one will state all the brutal truths (all the downsides of giving up abortion and raising that kid in financial hardship). They most definitely convinced her under information asymmetry.

3. Church people are bonded by shared faith and beliefs. If the mother opt out of church in the future (thinking it's too much of a psychological burden for her, which is possible), those people are VERY LIKELY to cut ties with her. If she quit church before the kid matured, that's long term welfare loss and burden now that she's on her own.

Yes, there are churches that ACTUALLY offer unconditional support, but the more unconditional they seemingly "offered", the HIGHER the exit bar (moral guilt on you, psychological burden of 'betraying the very people who helped you'):

Support ↑, Exit Bar ↑

Real statistical outliers are rare.

and this can be generalized to not just this case, but also all other supports the church offered:

My parents knew a friend who migrated into America years ago with almost nothing and joined some church (probably some heretical ones, what I can say is that church is definitely not the normal, chill, orthodox ones). They offered her housing, unconditional mental support, financial support, job opportunities etc., it took her YEARS to finally overcome her psychological burden to cut ties with these guys.

But the abortion case is even more extreme - It's an irreversible decision which requires a very significant amount of support to make it justified (welfare), and with this high amount of support, the exit bar is DEFINITELY high, for both sides (church and the mother).

Here's a valid question that the church can ask:

The permanent, psychological burden of carrying the fact that "I killed an unborn child". But that's heavily dependent on the mother's values and perspectives (whether she thinks it's a human or just a clump of cells), and manipulative language MUST NOT BE USED in the process. Ask: Is the permanent psychological cost worth avoiding the costs of upbringing a child?

And I intend to add one thing to refine it:

Cost of abortion: THE ONE OFF COST OF THE PROCEDURE + LR psychological cost. We must emphasize that the abortion procedure cost is ONE OFF, while psychological cost can be LR, but at the same time, the cost of upbringing that child is also LR, and maybe not just 18 years, probably forever (the child's mental health, emotional linkage etc.)

Going back, addressing the POSSIBILITY of the mother seeing the unborn child as a clump of cells (thus elasticity of Long run psychological burden of abortion might vary) is important and crucial because:

GIVEN the mother is not yet church affiliated before their intervention (persuasion). The church cannot force their beliefs on others if they think they are just a clump of cells.

This is regardless of MY beliefs to what unborn children are, it's true and possible.

Alternative solution, the mother could propose:

I'll still give birth to the child, but one of y'all church people share custody, or I give him/her up and put it up for adoption. That way, it fulfills your life preserving principles, if you're willing to.

This is: Reversible (compared to the two binary extremes), the mother can later get in touch with her kid if she actually does regret about it later in life

But almost no church people would actually be willing to do this, because 

1. They are also realistic on the burden of taking up one marginal child, and
2. They definitely won't support the mother giving the child up for adoption.

And crucially,

Throughout the interaction, the church is:

1. Convincing the mother to give up abortion

2. Convincing the mother to join the church.

Because they're church people (not assigning blame, not saying they're bad or what), when 1 fails, the church WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO TRY 2. If 1 failed and 2 successes...

There's a hidden LR burden [this is given that 1 failed and the mom did abort the child]:

If the mother really thinks the child is just a clump of cells now (LARGER BELIEF DIFFERENCE△), after joining the church, her beliefs will be reshaped into believing that she had actually killed a child. Probably like 10-20 years later, the church will make her feel infinite guilt of killing a child. This is the hidden psychological INCREASING COST OVER TIME, if 1 fails and 2 successes.

it's not just filling up the combinations (like the probability tables) it's possible, because real world interactions would sound like:

"I won't do that. I'll still abort the child, I'm sorry. It's just not worth it."

"Don't worry, (name), but just so you know, JOIN US. come to our services. It's meaningful,......"

So, the core of it? It is very unlikely that the church actually "helped (i.e. net positive welfare)" the mother. They've likely convinced her to give up adoption under information asymmetry and belief based coercion. And the support they've offered? It scales directly proportional with the exit threshold & costs. And since "having a kid" is a high stakes, life changing matter for any family, if the church really offered her enough support to overcome the welfare loss of having a kid (instead of abortion), then the guilt trip, mental costs of the mother leaving the church would also be extremely high, implicitly forcing the mother to stay in this church (if in the future, she no longer wanted to.) 

Threshold: The church would have actually helped the mother if the long term support is sufficient enough to offset the costs (not just money but also mental health, time costs), without using any sort of information asymmetric coercion and the mother is free to cut ties with the church without any guilt/"you've betrayed us" costs afterwards. 

I don't know. Maybe I'm bluffing some terms, maybe I've hit on some real concepts. Either way, do tell me about it. Challenge me.