TakuanSoho

Perhaps your Jewish historians words should be quoted here exactly TakuanSoho . That way we can determine if this historian just missed all the obvious jewish laws about the unborn, or if he deliberately meant to mislead.

In the mean time there are lots of rabbinical Jewish teaching sources on line.

One of the better ones can be found at this link.

My Jewish Learning: Fetus in Jewish Law


The Fetus in Jewish Law
Does a fetus have the same legal status as a person?
By Fred Rosner


Reprinted with permission from Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law, published by KTAV.



An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion. Biblical, talmudic, and rabbinic support for these statements will now be presented.


TOOLS
Font Type:
VerdanaArialCourierLucida GrandeTimes

Font Size: 9101112131415161718192021222324


Print this article
Email this article
Save article to MyLearning
Find similar articles






RELATED RESOURCES
TOPICS
Health and healing in the Jewish tradition
About the sources of Jewish law
A new ceremony for terminating a pregnancy

DISCUSSIONS
Ideas & Beliefs

FROM THE BLOG
Messianic Jews in Israel

NEWSLETTERS
Sign up for a newsletter

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Recommended books
about bioethics

Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”


The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus
[b]None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.

There is no murder involved when a fetus is harmed because the people of the bible understand God's laws about ensoulment. Putting them simply : God made it clear God sends the soul when we are born and take our first breath just as he takes the soul back when we die and take our last breath.

It is only the western apostate church who prefers the teachings of men to those of God,that has forgotten this simple fact of scriptures.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

TakuanSoho


More on Jewish abortion law FYI. Your historian did not state the facts fully.

Judaism 101: Kosher Sex
Abortion
Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

I can go to the actual Jewish legal texts if you wish but they are a bit dry for the purposes of this forum. Jewish civil law is all based on the bible, what they call the Torah. In Israel all people live by biblical rules.

The above text puts it in layman terms what Jewish law says which is based on old testament scriptures they call the Torah, we would call a OT bible.

Jewish law says: [size="3"]An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother.[/color]

Because it is clear in scriptures that God does not send the soul , what makes us human till we are born and breath. It is just western Christians that seem to not read the bible very well and rather depend on traditions of men that forget this fact. They err.


The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

The Torah or our old testament makes it clear as I have shown in past scriptures that the unborn are not considered human , they are potential life till they emerge the greater part of their body from the womb. Because at that point they could breath on their own.

I have also pointed out scriptures in the old testament in numbers where abortionate potions are given to women if their husband is even jealous and suspects them of adultery.

Rabbis's disagree that

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

Read post 611 on page 62. I will not take the time to explain myself to you palerider.

Except to say I have done due diligence with the aid of the holy spirit of God to study and discern the truth from scripture. As the Torah our old testament directs the soul is sent when we are born and take our first breath.

My only concern about all you idiots going on about abortion is that you are teaching falsely the Word of God. Not particularly you palerider because I have never seen you use scriptures for your argument .

But those that would misinterpret the bible as BD has so blatantly done or outright lie and add to and take away from scripture are committing a grievous sin. I would be wrong not to warn them of that fact. Not to warn them would be a sin laid on my account.

I will not have to explain to God anything about this issue palerider because I know the truth straight from God and the scriptures themselves. I know that the unborn are potential biological life and should be protected if at all possible. I also know that the soul only comes from God and God does not send souls willy nilly into biological life man can make himself.

And you should be glad, This means there are Not millions of frozen embryos sitting around in fertility clinics, headed for scientific studies or to be thrown in the trash with trapped souls in them. .......................God would not allow that.

Oh I forgot palerider your not sure if we have a soul to begin with, so I am wasting time talking to you about souls and scriptures as you apparently don't give due honor to either.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. If you are going to dodge the question, simply state that you are going to dodge. Don't refer me to a whole cut and paste job that has nothing to do with what I asked. It just makes you look stupid.

And you do realize don't you, that the information in that post is dealing with accidental injury to a woman that kills her child. There is a difference between accidentally killing and deliberate killing. If you are going to post this stuff, at least post something that is pertinent.

You know nothing wvpeach. You are making a guess at best and considering the line of thinking you are attempting to prove with your use of scripture out of context, I would say that it is a bad guess. The fact remains that something in your moral framework tells you that it is wrong to kill unborns but you use God's word to convince women who may be suceptable to your machinations that abortion is OK.

How many children do you believe have been killed by women who have taken your word for it? You aren't talking in a vaccum here. As sad as it is, people like you can have influence on people who aren't familiar with the Bible.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You make a good point palerider. That is the first valid point I have heard you make actually.

'
Some of the scriptures I gave are dealing with the accidental killing of something or somebody. ..........................good point, you should try to make valid points more often.

However that does not change the fact that god does not send the soul till we are born and breath.

Nor does it change the fact the bible records a woman suspected of adultery should be given a potion that would cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot, thereby killing any fetus that might be inside her when such potion was taken.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

I don't believe that you can rightly state that it is fact that we don't get souls until after we are born or that we even get souls. There are plenty of references in the bible to the effect that God knows us before we are born. How is it possible to know an inanimate soulless creature?

Also, there are ample references to God making us in the womb. I don't know if you make things so that you have a reference or not, but I am a craftsman. I make relatively high end furniture, I build radio control airplanes, I do stained glass and carpentry work. In fact, I am now in the process of finishing up a sun room that my wife has been wanting for a few years. The point is that if you came along and destroyed a piece of my work in progress, we would have a problem. Just because I am not finished with a project and have not completed the finishing touches does not mean that it is ok for you to come along and destroy what I have been working on.

If you believe that God actually makes us and if you believe, as the bible says that God actually creates us in the womb, then you have to believe that abortion is the destruction of one of God's works in progress. Do you really believe that he doesn't mind if we come along and destroy miracles that he is in the process of creating simply because the project isn't finished yet? If he didn't believe that this work was worth the effort, do you really believe that he would bother with the creation in the first place?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

This post of yours below paler rider shows that you have not read the biblical references and laws I have posted on these threads. Now granted there are about 3-4 threads here at Awe we have been posting on in the abortion area of the forum. While talking to TakuanSoho the other day, I realized that my posts about the scriptures that talk about ensoulment, and explanations of Jewish law, the people of the bible, are scattered over the 3-4 threads here that could make it difficult to jump back and forth and study.

I can restart the topic of ensoulment and put them all together to make that easier for everyone. .................when I have time which will probably be at least next week.

But in the mean time since I doubt your sincerity palerider to know the scriptures, I suggest you start at the ensoulment thread I started a few days ago here in the abortion area and read all the posts, all the links and all the scriptures contained there in. Because its obvious to me you have not read my many posts on the subject or you would have better questions than those you ask below.


I will say one thing , God knows us before we are born. Because we are part of God. Each of us live and breath because we have the spirit of God within us. Many call the spirit the soul, that is actually incorrect scripture says the soul is the flesh, or our body and animals bodies are souls as well in scripture. The spirit of God inside each of us is why we live and breath. Certainly God knew us before we are born. Scripture points to the fact he had us planned to come into being from part of himself since before the world was formed.

I use the word soul only because it is the word understood by people that have not studied the bible in earnest. So you see palerider the bible does say we have a soul, it is our body and it says we have a spirit, that is the essence , life force that is part of God, it is sent when we are born and returns to God when we die.

And humans God foreknew and planned to be born will be born. In this age or the next they will walk on the earth and live out lives similar to the ones we lead now but in a better system of rule.

God has not allowed billions upon billions of his children to be stopped from being born. Your worries are in vain where that is concerned . I assure you.

But all this is weighty study palerider. I would be happy to study with you if you ever get serious about it. I seriously doubt you will though, so in the meantime I refer you to my many posts on the abortion threads as they contain scripture and teachings about what men commonly call the soul and when we are ensouled.

In the meantime the only reason I am still stopping in these threads is to make sure people are still not making up their own bible. No more of the bible as written by BD. I will stop in enough to make sure if people start making up scriptures I am here to post the real ones so the bible will not be slandered.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

The laws you refer to peach are with regard to accidents and adultry. None speak to deliberately killing a child because it is less than convenient.

Also, I understand the difference between spiritual creatures and soulish creatures. I can say with confidence that I know the bible as well as you. I don't use it as a basis for my position because it provides exactly zero proof of anything. It is a work of faith, not proof.

This statement is rediculous and foolish on its face. God has allowed all manner of death and destruction to be perpetrated on innocents. To suggest that God wouldn't allow you to kill an unborn child but would allow tens of thousands of Christians to be fed to lions and tigers in the Roman arena for intertainment is nonsense.

A child is a gift to you and since you have free will, God will let you do whatever you want with it as with every other gift he offers.

Thanks but no thanks on the offer to study with you. I am not interested in your sort of study. You clearly have an agenda and are willing to take scriptures out of context if the words are such that you can massage them enough to support your agenda. The Bible is God's agenda and there is no permission there to kill children who are simply not convenient.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

To be honest palerider in my studies prompted by the spirit of God and taught by that source I settled the issue of ensoulment long ago in my mind. Abortion is wrong , it is a sin, but it is not destroying a human God planned for this world. Because God will not allow man to change his plans one little bit. This knowledge is all biblical and can be found with studies that go beyond the bounds of this forum.

It is my opinion that if one wants to seriously study the scriptures it should not be done here as the spirit of the world which is the spirit of the anti christ is evident on this forum. Studies done by a new seeker of truth would be hindered by that anti christ spirit that is so evident here at AWE.

Abortion has never and will never be a central focus for me, because I understand that God the great Father Yahweh has a plan and that plan includes each and every one of us because he knew us before we were formed in our mothers wombs. Man cannot change the plans of God. I know abortion is wrong but it will never stop nor does it change God's plans he fore knew abortion would be rife in the world and among mankind.

Since I perceive that you are taking some interest in where the scriptural differences arise in the topic of ensoulment I will offer the following writing. It is by no means as comprehensive about the many scriptures that deal with human lifes as some of the others I have posted here at the forum. But it does a good job of showing how western Christians and other religious people came to believe what they currently believe.

Is Abortion Murder?

Leila Bronner a professor of theology does a good job with a short study on why people believe what they believe may it be a blessing to those starting to study the subject I pray.

The question of whether abortion is murder is one of the most divisive issues in America. Participants in such debates may cite a generic religious authority but rarely acknowledge that the Jewish and Christian traditions are grounded in the Bible, so how did these differences arise? This issue is salient even in our secularized society because the Bible still shapes our morality, and more importantly, because telling a woman that she is committing murder is vastly different from telling her that abortion is a complicated moral issue.

The central biblical text which deals with the issue under discussion is Exodus 21:22-23:

When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life.

The implications of this text are twofold: first, that the mother is considered an independent life, because the penalty for her death is the penalty for murder; second, that the fetus is not considered an independent life, because the penalty for accidental abortion of the fetus is only a monetary fine. Causing the loss of the fetus under these circumstances is an offense, but not a capital crime.

In the Jewish tradition, only a few texts relate to the fetus, and thus to abortion. The Talmud states that for the first forty days, the fetus should be considered mere fluid in the womb (Yevamot 69b). Elsewhere, the Talmud twice (Hullin 55a; Gittin 23b) describes the fetus as "part of the mother" (ubar yerekh imo; the Latin counterpart is pars viscerum matris), which indicates the dependence of the fetus on the mother and, like Exodus 21:22-23, implies that the fetus has no legal personality of its own. The debate in Archin 7a on whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth seems to confirm that the fetus is not an independent entity, since the commentators tend to recommend immediate execution. Further support is lent by the interpretation given in Sanhedrin 76b on Leviticus 24:17: "If one smite any human person, then one is culpable." The "any" is understood to include the day-old child but exclude the fetus, for the fetus in the womb is "not a person," until born. Commenting on this verse, Rashi states that only when the fetus "comes into the world" is it a "person."

The pivotal rabbinic text on abortion is found in Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.

Again, the fetus is not a person when in the womb, but here the fetus becomes a person once the head or greater part of the body has emerged. It follows that when the Talmud in Sanhedrin 72b states that you are not permitted to murder one person in order to save another, the law is simply inapplicable to the fetus, because the fetus is not a person. Furthermore, the Talmud does allow dismemberment of a partially emerged child when the motherís life is endangered, thus according final priority to the life of the mother over the life of the child. These discussions turn on the technical Talmudic concept of rodef. The term for a potential murderer is rodef, a "pursuer" or, in contemporary parlance, a stalker, one who pursues another in order to kill him. Under normal circumstances, a rodef may be killed if this is the only way in which the life of the intended victim can be saved. Two conflicting viewpoints about the applicability of the rodef principle to the fetus are offered by commentators. Some commentators believe that when it is the child who threatens the mother, then the law of rodef applies, even though the rodef is a minor and so not responsible for his or her actions. Others believe that the motherís life is not being pursued by the child, but by "heaven," that is, the mother is dying as a result of natural causes, hence, the childís life cannot be made forfeit on the grounds of rodef, but there is still acknowledgement that the motherís life is to be saved at the expense of the child's life.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

More evidence that Jewish tradition does not regard the fetus as a person independent of the mother emerges in the laws of the Sabbath. Many pages of the Talmud are devoted to the question, "Can you desecrate the Sabbath to save the fetus?" It is certainly permissible to desecrate the Sabbath to save the mother, but there is much discussion on the issue of whether it is permissible to do the same for the fetus. In Arakin 7a, the commentators decide that if the mother dies before giving birth, the fetus may be removed from the dead mother on the Sabbath because at that point the fetus is considered a person, that is, no longer dependent on the mother. Here we see that the fetus has intrinsic value because the Sabbath may be desecrated to save it (A knife may be carried on the Sabbath in order to aid in the delivery of a child [Yoma 85b]), but the very fact this point was debated shows that the fetus is considered only as part of the mother except in unusual circumstances and, moreover, that a existing human life has precedence over a potential human life.

Jewish law (halakhah), influenced by the Exodus passage, studied and reinterpreted in every generation has succeeded in guiding Jews on the issue of abortion. The halakhah clearly states that abortion cannot be considered murder, that the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus, and that the fetus is not a life separate from the mother prior to its birth.

The Roman Catholic Church view on abortion derives from the third-century BCE Greek translation of Exodus 21:22-23.

And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life (LXX).

Obviously, the Septuagint is not true to the Hebrew original. It changes the Hebrew word for harm (ason) into a word in Greek meaning "form, icon," which ason could never mean, and changes the construction such that ason applies to the fetus rather than to the mother.

I can cite one ancient Near Eastern source that may have influenced these alterations. The Hittite laws of the second millennium BCE dictate that more monetary compensation be paid when the fetus is destroyed in the fifth month than when it is destroyed in the tenth (sic) month. Here is the first intimation that the fetus could be assigned value depending on how much it has developed. By the first century, Hellenistic Jews such as Philo are assigning relative value to a fetus according to whether it is "shaped" or "unshaped," or "formed" or "unformed." They regard only the shaped fetus as a full person, although they do not spell out at what month a fetus attains "shape." As Bernard S. Jackson states, Hellenistic Judaism "regarded the [viable fetus] as protected by the law of homicide. For the [nonviable fetus], damages continued to be paid" (Bernard S. Jackson, "The Problem of Exodus 21:22-25 (Lex Talionis)," Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973), p. 302. See also Victor Aptowitzer, "Observations on the Criminal Law of the Jews," Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1924-1925), pp. 85ff).

Under the Catholic Church, the debate about abortion came to center on a refinement of viability: the question of when life begins, namely, when the soul enters the body of the fetus. In the Jewish tradition, ensoulment is moot (In the Talmud, the Roman Emperor Antoninus seems to convince Judah HaNasi that the soul enters at conception [Sanhedrin 91a], but this belief never became a part of Jewish tradition). In contrast, the Catholic Church makes ensoulment a crucial question because the Catholic Church teaches that a soul that has not been baptized is condemned to eternal perdition. This is why the Catholic view on the question of whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth is that she should be kept alive until she has given birth; if the mother is executed while pregnant, the soul of fetus will be lost because it is unbaptized. The early Church Fathers express a variety of opinions about the time of ensoulment. Tertullian (2nd century), whose arguments are based on the views of the Pythagorean Greeks (7th century BCE), states that the soul enters at conception, and St. Gregory (4th century) reiterates this view. The Didache, a handbook of basic Christianity for converts (3rd century or later), decrees "thou shalt not murder the child in the motherís womb." St.Augustine, who lived in the 5th century CE, and who was influenced by the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-23 and perhaps by the Greek writings of Aristotle (Politics, VII, 14:10) and the Hellenistic ideas of Philo, claims that only a formed fetus of forty or eighty days has a soul and needs baptism (St. Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2:80. The forty and eighty come from Leviticus 12:2-5, which deals with purification for the mother, but he is misinterpreting the passage). Because St. Augustine makes a distinction between an abortion of an animate (embroyo formatus) or inanimate (embroyo informatus) fetus, he rejected the Pythagorean Greeks' theory of ensoulment at conception. In any event, the Catholic Church finally made it dogma that ensoulment happens at conception.

In twentieth-century America, abortion has been thrown into the secular realm for a variety of reasons. Our secular court of appeal is science, but even science cannot provide us with empirical proof concerning the moment at which life begins. Science traditionally deals only with physical matters, not with metaphysical matters such as ensoulment. Through science, we have learned much about the complicated physiology of the fertilization of the egg and the formation of the fetus, including the fact that many eggs and spermatozoa are lost for every egg that is fertilized and the fact that many fertilized eggs never become biologically finished babies. The ruling in Roe v. Wade allows first-trimester abortion in accordance with elementary principles of modern biology and on the basis of the right to privacy, but the ruling does not address the question of when life begins, that is, when ensoulment happens.

I think that we must acknowledge that in the near future lawyers, doctors, scientists, and theologians will be not able to supply a generally acceptable answer to the question of the moment of ensoulment. Those concerned with this issue necessarily turn back to religion, specifically to the dogma of the Catholic Church, because the Church is where the idea was formulated and promulgated. Those not concerned about ensoulment but still wishing to be guided by biblical teachings note that the Bible is always concerned with the sanctity of the born before the unborn, and thus there can be no "fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed" for the "unborn child." The doctrine of the "sanctity of life," which is based on Scriptures such as Genesis 9:5-7, is germane not only to the fetus but also to the mother. Further, neither the commandment "You shall not murder" nor the law in Exodus 21:22-23 should be taken to mean that, "The Bible says abortion is murder." The essence of biblical teaching is the right to and respect for life, but since the Scriptures never describe the fetus as being a fully human life, if we are to ground our decisions about abortion in the moral teachings of the Bible, concern must be first and foremost for the mother, as she is already a fully developed and viable life.

We have come at last to the heart of the differences between the pro-choice and pro-life movements and between Jewish and Catholic traditions: when a fetus can be considered fully human (or ensouled), and whether the life of the mother has priority over the life of a fetus. Jewish law focuses on the life of the mother, while Catholic tradition focuses on the soul of the fetus. As a biblical scholar, I understand why the issue has been split in this way, because I can trace the historical factors determining this split. Jewish tradition clearly places the premium on the life of the mother and clearly states that the fetus is not a person and thus abortion cannot be considered murder. Of course, abortion remains an ethical and moral issue for many Jews, but it is decided case-by-case in consultation with the family and the rabbi and considering spiritual, physical, emotional, and socioeconomic factors. Catholic tradition, because it is based on the Greek translation of the original Hebrew text, has developed differently, placing a premium on the question of saving the soul of the unborn child, even at the expense of the life of the mother.

We cannot settle the issue of abortion, then, because we have no secular way of dealing with the religious doctrine of ensoulment and because we do not acknowledge that ensoulment is tied to a particular religious tradition. Our unwillingness to acknowledge that even our supposedly secular canons of morality and ethics are shaped by religion also complicates the abortion debates. In the United States, abortion often is discussed under the guise of secularity but our opinions are shaped by religious teachings. The teachings of the Judaic and the Christian traditions, for example, differ profoundly on the issue of abortion, and difficulties result when such differences are elided. More authentic moral and religious considerations may well help to move us into framing the abortion debate in new ways, ways that are more respectful not only of historical sources but also of the multireligious society in which we live.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php