The Sin of Abortion as Killing

Section One of the Upasaka Pancasila Sutra Original Text: Furthermore, regarding abortion: Administering vomit-inducing and purgative drugs to a pregnant woman, or introducing purgative drugs through any orifice, or puncturing blood vessels and channels, or even administering drugs that cause tears to flow, with the thought: 'By this cause and condition, may this woman die.' If the woman dies, [the Upasaka] commits an unpardonable offense. If she does not die immediately, but later dies because of this, he also commits an unpardonable offense. If she does not die immediately and later does not die because of it, it is a middling offense that can be repented. If, for the purpose of killing the mother, he causes an abortion, and the mother dies, he commits an unpardonable offense. If the fetus dies, it is an offense that can be repented. If both die, it is an unpardonable offense. If neither dies, it is a middling offense that can be repented. If, for the purpose of killing the fetus, he performs an abortion procedure, and the fetus dies, he commits an unpardonable offense. If the fetus does not die, it is a middling offense that can be repented. If the mother dies, it is a middling offense that can be repented. If both die, he commits an unpardonable offense. This is called the method of killing through abortion.

Explanation: To elaborate on the case of killing through abortion: If one gives vomit-inducing and purgative drugs to a pregnant woman, or introduces purgative drugs through any orifice, or punctures blood vessels and channels, or even administers drugs that cause tears to flow, with the thought: 'May this woman die by this method.' If the woman dies, the Upasaka commits an unpardonable offense. If the woman does not die immediately but later dies because of these drugs, the Upasaka also commits an unpardonable offense. If the woman does not die immediately and later does not die because of it, he commits a middling offense that can be repented. If the Upasaka causes an abortion for the purpose of killing that pregnant mother, and the mother dies, he commits an unpardonable offense. If the fetus dies, he commits an offense that can be repented. If both die, he commits an unpardonable offense. If neither dies, he commits a middling offense that can be repented. If he performs an abortion procedure for the purpose of killing the fetus, and the fetus dies, he commits an unpardonable offense. If the fetus does not die, he commits a middling offense that can be repented. If the mother dies, he commits a middling offense that can be repented. If both die, he commits an unpardonable offense. This is the method of killing through abortion. Why is it that when killing the mother, if the fetus dies, the Upasaka commits an offense that can be repented? Because the Upasaka did not have the intent to kill the fetus; the fetus died as a result of its connection to the mother. Why is it that when killing the fetus, if the mother dies, the Upasaka commits an offense that can be repented? The principle is the same as above: the Upasaka did not have the intent to kill the mother; the mother died as a result of her connection to the fetus.