Update: A reader points out concerning the LA woman in the video:
She says (more than once) that the child’s father (1) told her to go get an abortion and (2) is paying for her to do so. Her being there is exploratory inasmuch as she’s “not 100% sure”. This latter one *could* be regarded as broad mental reservation, although I think circumstances are challenging for that. But the former is an out-and-out lie.
Fair enough. I take it back. I wish LA would stop the lying for Jesus tactics. All it does is make me wonder how much of the video has been edited selectively. And if I’m wondering, you can bet that those on the fence are far more dubious. It’s no way to fight this battle. Moreover there is this troubling point. My reader says:
Consider this exchange (on page 13 of the transcript):
“Woman: ‘Cause I’m, like, just so scared of, like–
Dr. Santangelo: Sure, sure. Obviously, you know?
Woman: –having to be stuck with the responsibility. So would you make–but would you make sure that it, like– Dr. Santangelo: Yeah.
Woman: –it doesn’t survive?”
This isn’t a leading question. This is a lie. The “hypothetical” “it” here is not merely a “what if” abortion but an abortion that has been indicated to be sought and expected. (The boyfriend gave her money for it).
She’s saying, “This abortion that I want to have… will you make sure the baby is dead and not alive?”
Not a generic cover-all kind of scenario.
In fact, it’s the specificity that matters so much here from the moral point of view too. When speaking generically, an “ill intent” to sin wouldn’t necessarily be imputed to the abortionist – not just yet, anyway. But because of the proximity of the “would-be” act to the consideration, if I were spiritually counseling this guy, I’d say he’s guilty of choosing that object. To kill *this* baby.