there is a phrase in the original rule that is important.
“or praise the advantages of death”
This opens up the door just about anything, even a nod of the head or a grunt, etc that may praise the benefits of killing, or death. In this case, speaking up in praise of abortion for any case, even to save the life of a mother, is an offense as well. If someone were to listen to a recording of such words or read an article of such words, and then do the abortion, then it would be an offense for a monk all the same as killing himself.
Such a topic is sort of taboo for a monk to publicly speak on because there is no way of really knowing if someone had killed an unborn baby based on such words. Just as it is the penalty for monks on killing humans, it can be used as a model for the first precept for lay people on killing living beings.
"At one time a certain woman whose husband was living away
from home became pregnant by a lover. She said to a monk who was
supported by her family, “Master, please find a method of abortion.”
“All right, sister,” he said, and he gave her a method of abortion. The
child died. He became anxious. … “You, monk, have fallen into an
offence entailing expulsion.”
At one time a certain man had two wives, one who was barren
and one who was fertile. The barren one said to a monk who was
supported by her family, “If she should bring forth a child, bhante,
she will become mistress of the whole household. Master, please find
a method of abortion for her.” “All right, sister,” he said, and he gave
her a method of abortion. The child died, but the mother did not die.
He became anxious … “… expulsion.”
At one time a certain woman who was pregnant said to a monk
who was supported by her family, “Master, please find me a method
of abortion.” “Well then crush¹ it, sister,” he said. She crushed it and
caused an abortion. He became anxious … “… expulsion.”
Could we replace "method of abortion" with "justification for abortion"?
Adversely, is it arguable that insofar as the monk justifying abortion does not regard the fetus as a human being, he does not knowingly encourage murder?
What if the monk actually lies to himself and convinces himself that the fetus is not a human being, disregarding blatant evidence of the contrary, say, out of willingness to be considered a progressist?