• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Bible is actually pro-choice. Kinda. It only mentions abortion once. That’s Numbers 5: 11-31. It tells you how to perform an abortion.

      • Brutticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is… a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.

        The part you are referring to is referred to as “Sota” which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as “sota water,” to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, “these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture” . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.

        Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won’t hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Doesn’t that mean that the bible condones abortion in the case of infidelity? In which case, shouldn’t Republicans want that to be an exception?

          • Brutticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It could be interpreted that way… I think? The language it uses refers to seeds.

            וְנִזְרֳעָ֥ה זָֽרַע

            The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the ‘Nezre’ah Zerah’ implies the potion will cause barreness.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it’s on the moot side of things.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn’t forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.

          As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.

        • Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, “oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks.”

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will “take the commitment more seriously”.

      He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      it’s always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they’re an adult, divorce doesn’t matter because they don’t care, you’re an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn’t care less. it’s also about punishment. a man can’t be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she’s a whore and deserves it.

      edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they’re treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.