• tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    I was hoping this was going to be a lot of fun to read, but the entire story has little or nothing to do with abortion. And while I suppose if you want to interpret it like that, you could, but that’s a bit hypocritical.

    It is, however, I really good example of how the Bible says it’s OK to torture women

    • hondaguy97386
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It has everything to do with an abortion. How else do you think the husband would think the wife had an affair other than she is pregnant and shouldn’t be?

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Give me the ingredients.

        It’s got nothing to do with removing the baby. It’s basically torturing her with dirty water. It says nothing of a prevented pregnancy.

        • hondaguy97386
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, the potion (lets call magic what it is) is meant to abort the baby if it isn’t the husband’s. If she doesn’t abort then it is his. This section has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. The whole point is the man thinks the woman is carrying another man’s baby.

        • 5too@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The ingredients are a lousy abortifacient, because it’s really more of a magic ceremony. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s intended to trigger an abortion, if the husband is not the father.

    • tbs9000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You expected any talk about abortion to be fun? Whether an abortion is no one’s business but the woman’s, I can’t imagine fun could come anywhere near the experience.

      Also, the whole section (not just 21) is a step-by-step guide which results in aborting a baby conceived in an extramarital relationship.

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Fun like fun to mock the dumb Christians. Also, it’s pretty vague and not step by step. I read it. It doesn’t have ingredients. You’re INTERPRETING

        • tbs9000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          A better challenge would be, “this isn’t a choice-based abortion and not a direct, meaningful challenge to modern, destructive, pro-life positions.”

          However it is interpreted, though, it does contradict the first principle upon which pro-life positions are based that any abortion is murder and therefore prohibited. My short time on this platform has led me to assume the average commenter is not capable of nuance and therefore assumes any contradiction is a stance on the polar opposite - I therefore must spend this sentence clarifying I believe the first principle of pro-lifers is absolutely false.

          The passage literally has ingredients of wheat, holy water, and church dust with instructions for use.

          • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            You might be thinking that wheat is a strange thing to add to this list until you find out what ergot is and what effect it can have on a pregnancy.

            • tbs9000@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              That just makes this even more sad than I already thought - how many honest women were deemed harlots because they were tortured into a miscarriage?