-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do Reform Jews believe about gay marriage and abortion?
- Thread starter ZooGirl02
- Start date
Levite
Higher and Higher
The Reform movement officially encourages gay Jews to marry, and to live together in committed monogamy, and raise Jewish children.
There is a Reform rabbinic responsum written by Rabbi Walter Jacob, who is one of the movement's senior experts in Jewish Law, which permits abortion under most serious circumstances, so long as it is not taken lightly.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
Ah okay cool! What would be considered a serious circumstance? Like for example, would it be considered a serious circumstance if someone who was both unmarried and mentally unstable became pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy and the father was totally unwilling to have a child? What if this both parents did not see themselves as being capable of raising the child? What if bringing the pregnancy to full term could have a serious impact on the mother's health due to preexisting obesity?
Nerthus
Wanderlust
My understanding is that Reform Judaism will allow abortion if the woman's life/ health is at risk or the baby would be born with serious health issues or disability, and the parents believe it be best to end the pregnancy for that reason. I think also if the pregnancy was the result of rape, then abortion would be allowed.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
Orthodox Judaism also holds this position.
As far as rape is concerned it usually depends.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I am not sure. I do know that Conservative Judaism in the US is similar to Reform Judaism in England. I am not familiar with Reconstructionist Judaism so I can't tell you much about them
Levite
Higher and Higher
Well, this is actually something that is not well defined in Jacob's responsum on the subject, nor in the responsum on the subject of Rabbi Moshe Zemer, the Reform movement's other premiere halakhist.
There is a persistent problem with Reform responsa, in my professional opinion, in that, due to the desire of the authors not to infringe upon the Reform theological position that all Jews ought to be able to interpret Torah for themselves, a well-defined resolution to the responsum is often lacking. Of course, it was the seminal Reform theologian and historian Jacob Petuchowski who pointed out that such a theological position only effectively functions if all Reform Jews are extremely well-educated in Jewish text, tradition, and halakhic thought. So one might think that, given that most Reform Jews are not, in fact, extremely well-educated in Jewish text, tradition, and halakhic thought, the authors of Reform responsa might be a bit more precise in their conclusions. And yet....
However, since, historically, the halakhah has always been strongly weighted toward saving the life and health of the mother, rather than preserving the fetus, I would presume that Jacob and Zemer would both be strongly permissive of abortion in the case of a woman whose obesity-related co-morbidities caused dangerous complications to pregnancy. I would also presume that Jacob, especially, who was instrumental in opening the door to including psychological dangers to the mother, in addition to physical dangers, would permit abortion in the case of a pregnant mentally unbalanced woman. (Jacob and Zemer both, by the way, are explicit about permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest, as do all Conservative authorities, many Modern Orthodox authorities, and some centrist Orthodox authorities.)
I am not certain what precisely is the meaning of "both parents did not see themselves as being capable of raising the child." Is this referring to physical problems, or emotional problems, or economic problems? Whatever the case, while I doubt that Jacob or Zemer would explicitly prohibit abortion in such a case, they would most likely be unwilling to be very permissive. Generally speaking, most halakhic authorities have been inclined to permit abortion only when there is physical danger to the mother, or when there is severe psychological danger to the mother. The exception to all of these cases is early first trimester abortion. If a woman wishes to have an abortion within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, nearly all non-Orthodox authorities (and even one or two Modern Orthodox authorities) permit abortion for any reason the mother may have, on the basis of a Rabbinic opinion from the Talmud that states that legally, "Until the fortieth day [following the first missed period] it is merely fluid in the womb."
But after that point, most rabbis would probably demand a compelling physical or psychological health reason for abortion, otherwise, the halakhah would probably demand that the woman have the baby, and, if she were disinclined to raise the child, to give it up for adoption. I presume that Jacob and Zemer would concur with what I have just said, given that Jacob, at least, explicitly says he does not support abortion "for economic reasons."
Levite
Higher and Higher
Yeah, Reform and Reconstructionist are pretty different. Both are not Halakhic Judaism, but that's really where the similarity ends.
I gave a quick thumbnail sketch of Reform Judaism in this post, in which I also direct to other posts with thumbnails about the other major movements, including one on Reconstructionism.
Nerthus
Wanderlust
Many religions will allow it if the mothers life is at risk.
There has never been a question over it in my experience. If a woman wishes for an abortion following rape it will be permitted.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
I think most times they will, but I still think it depends in some cases. It's not like when the mother's life is at risk where there's a technical obligation to abort the baby.
Nerthus
Wanderlust
No not physical, but abortion will be permitted for psychological stress also. The mental strain of having a baby conceived through rape, would be too much for some women. I guess it differs everywhere though.
KingDavid94
New Member
How they interpret Leviticus 18:22;20:13?
Correctly.
The hebrew term 'sheqets' is translated into English as 'abomination' in the "bible". That's not what it really means. A better word for sheqets would be 'taboo'. More of a social value than an actual sin. Shrimp is also called sheqets, but who gets all worked up over shrimp? See, social value in action.
God Hates Shrimp
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
The word used in both verses that is often translated as "abomination" is toevah. While I have read certain articles which suggest that toevah is akin to "taboo" or that it is a relative term, the reason homosexuality is prohibited is not because it is toevah but because the Torah explicitly commands "Et zakhar lo tishkhav mishkhav isha, toevah hi". With man don't tishkhav as mishkhav with a woman.
Generally, the specific halakha (as I understand it) is a prohibition against intercourse (so in the case of two males, anal sex is what would be prohibited).
That being said, technically, as long as they don't engage in anal sex, there would be nothing wrong with a gay couple.
Generally, Orthodoxy treats homosexuality as something that is generally prohibited although more is being done in recent years to show compassion to the homosexual and not to treat them any differently then someone who falls short in any other area of halakha.
Anyways, just my .02 about the word toevah. I know this is the Reform DIR.
Levite
Higher and Higher
The Reform movement (in America, at least-- it may be different in the Reform movements in other countries, which tend to be a bit more traditional) does not define itself as a halachic movement. They see Torah (if I understand the theology correctly) as a human endeavor to understand how God wants us to live. And so in regard to things like Leviticus 18 and 20, they simply disregard it as incompatible with ethics as we understand them currently.
Some of the best Reform rabbis, like Ellenson and Levy, say that Leviticus 18 and 20 must be understood as contexted by prohibitions on idolatrous behavior, and thus only homosexual acts done in the service of false gods is prohibited.
That notion is actually quite supportable in the text, but halachic Judaism would require Rabbinic precedents for such reinterpretation, while in the Reform movement, merely making the reinterpretation is adequate.
The above is what I have understood from conversations with Ellenson, Levy, Weisberg, Adler, and other major Reform scholars. But I freely admit I may have misunderstood them, as I am not a Reform Jew, and am inclined to disagree with Reform theology. So anyone who does understand better, please feel free to correct me.
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
That is correct for central and western europe. At least for the congregations that i've visited.
That's pretty much how I see it as well. Anal intercourse is frighteningly dangerous, as we now know. Ask any ER nurse. Back then, if it went bad, the consequences were probably fatal, being no ERs. The equipment is simply not up to that physical stress. To me, there isn't really a distinction between same-sex couples or hetero couples in that regard. The only difference would be that hetero couples have the option of vaginal intercourse whereas (male) same-sex couples do not.
Personally, I''d be much happier if it was the act itself that was prohibited. However, I believe that many such social laws were given within the framework of the culture, we see a similar case with laws concerning slavery. I believe that the laws of slavery were designed to wean the society off of slave mentality, not encourage it. Perhaps in this case, the social context would also be a cause for a similar path. The issue was the act, not the participants, but the act was identified by the society to concern male couples. Personally, I have no problem with same-sex couples.
Now, let me say I was not born & raised Reform, I was raised Orthodox, albeit of a liberal Sephardic type. So, these views may not be entirely in accord with Reform, but certainly a product of my long association with them, as I am a member of a Reform temple for many years now.
Last edited: