This is borderline on the type of discussion which indicate we don't even have a common agreement on what the word "support" means. This isn't "support", this is use of a terrible thing in one very particular circumstance.
I think this is a particularly common logical error in modern (e.g., post-internet) discourse: over-generalization. People will take one instance of something and assume that it therefore is making a universal statement, which is often not the case.
I mean if you go that route, you might as well say that the Bible supports biosphere destruction because God flooded the earth (maybe that's why some people don't care about climate change? I wish that was sarcastic...).
I've seen the flood brought up in conversations about why god doesn't care if we destroy the environment, yes, though there's other arguments on that front that come up much more often. All the divinely mandated murder and destruction and rape and whatnot have pretty regularly come up as arguments for why that kind of horseshit is okay when the right people do it, too, and as far as I'm aware it's shit that predates modern discourse by
centuries, so trying to blame it on something recent is just... not accurate. It's an old sickness, not a new one.
But yes, when you use some terrible thing in a specific circumstance (note though that your "specific circumstance" here is "adultery", which stateside currently has the rates at about 1 in 5 for men and around 1 in 7 for women, which is to say it's extremely
not specific and would entail very widespread usage), you are, in fact, supporting its use. Limited support is still support.
Pointedly, it would put
scriptural support for abortion at a significantly higher rate than we're seeing from people claiming to be christian and in a circumstance they're not even remotely thinking about or trying to legislate on. Or in other words, the shit we're seeing from american religious extremists (you can note that down as anyone happy the activist judges on the SCOTUS just pissed all over every disagreeing religion in the country) have very, very little to do with what religion they're claiming.
What the Bible supports or does not support shouldn't be influencing policy of a supposedly "secular" nation.
I mean, it
shouldn't, but this entire pile of horseshit is substantively (though not nearly
entirely, it being more the manufactured excuse than the actual reason) due to american church propaganda trying (and in this case, succeeding to some degree) to dictate secular policy.