Monday, June 01, 2009

Moral clarity on the life and death of George Tiller

I’ll be commenting on some statements by Richard Land:

http://erlc.com/article/richard-land-condemns-the-killing-of-tiller/

I’m picking on Land because he’s a smart, well-educated, evangelical spokesman. In this case I usually agree with his conclusions, but I don’t agree with his process of reasoning.

This is the basic problem: prolife organizations are so afraid of being tarred with unfair, guilty associations that set the cause back that they sometimes resort to sweeping disclaimers which disregard important moral distinctions.

Since mainstream prolife organizations genuinely eschew vigilantism, they have every right to distance themselves from vigilantes. Mainstream prolife organizations have no hidden agenda to target abortionists. They oppose that on both principled and pragmatic grounds. So it’s perfectly appropriate for them to disassociate themselves from vigilantism.

But because they’re so afraid of guilt-by association, their spokesmen, or other Christian leaders, sometimes lack moral clarity in the way they express themselves. Their rhetoric reflects a hyperbolic overreaction to the PR consequences of certain highly publicized crimes.

Yet public policy on abortion is an issue where moral clarity ought to be at a premium. With that in mind, let’s review some of his statements.

“If the perpetrator of this violence proves to be someone who was acting in the name of the pro-life movement, everyone in the pro-life community must swiftly and soundly repudiate him and his actions.”

I agree.

“The murder of Dr. George Tiller is a human tragedy. Murdering someone is a grotesque and bizarre way to emphasize one’s commitment to the sanctity of human life. People who truly believe in the sanctity of human life believe in the sanctity of the lives of abortion providers as well as the unborn babies who are aborted.”

This is where the analysis begins to go haywire. All deaths are not equal in the eyes of God. And Land is quite capable of drawing that distinction in other situations, viz. just war, capital punishment.

Tragedy for whom? Not for his potential victims.

His murder is no more or less tragic than the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer. (I’ll revisit that comparison momentarily.)

I could also do without the “abortion provider” euphemism.

“The killing of abortion doctors by private citizens raises the important question of whether such an action is a morally legitimate Christian response to legalized abortion on demand. We strongly contend that killing abortion doctors is not a moral option for Christians.”

While I happen agree with that statement, it doesn’t give a reason for why the reader should agree with it. I can supply my own reasons. Fill in the blanks. But taken by itself, it’s a rather question-begging assertion.

“Pro-life Americans must take the moral high ground and vigorously oppose vigilante violence against abortion doctors or anyone else.”

Once again, I agree with this statement. At the same time, the rationale is overstated.

It’s trivially easy for Christians to think of examples in which vigilantism would be morally justified. Therefore, a blanket condemnation of vigilantism, without introducing some reasonable qualifications, is unconvincing.

Moreover, unbelievers can also think of examples in which vigilantism is morally justified. What examples come to mind depends on your ideology. Liberals think of liberal examples. Conservatives think of conservative examples.

Unfortunately, Christian leaders like Richard Land sometimes resort to the rhetoric of shame rather than persuasion. In effect, they’re trying to shame the reader into agreeing with them–rather than reasoning with their audience. This is a way of silencing dissent rather than winning someone over to your position. We need to do better than that.

“So long as American democracy remains a legitimate form of government, with provisions for redress, reform, and nonviolent protest, we must remain ‘wise as serpents, harmless as doves.’”

That’s a better argument. At the same time, judges regularly subvert the democratic process.

Ultimately, though, the electorate could put a stop to judicial inference. So his point stands.

““Clearly, the killing of abortion providers is unbiblical, unchristian and un-American. Such callous disregard for human beings brutalizes everyone.”

Once more, I agree with his conclusion, but not with his supporting argument. It goes back to treating every death as morally equivalent. That’s clearly not the case. And Land himself doesn’t believe that. For example, Land is not a pacifist.

““For people to take the law into their hands in this fashion and to attempt to be judge, jury and executioner of a fellow human being is reprehensible and must be condemned by all civilized citizens.”

Once again, I agree with the conclusion, but not with how he arrives at that conclusion. Here he reiterates two fallacious in the space of one sentence: a blanket condemnation of vigilantism along with the moral equivalence of every human death.

This is not sound reasoning. It’s emotive rhetoric pressed into the service of a worthy conclusion. But a worthy conclusion deserves a worthy argument to underwrite the conclusion.

Let’s go back to my earlier comparison. Suppose I’m an inmate where Dahmer is incarcerated. Dahmer should have been executed, not given a life sentence.

Does that mean it’s my duty to kill Dahmer? No. For one thing, I’m not the injured party. He never harmed my family or me.

For another thing, it’s not my responsibility to mete out justice in his case. It’s not as if God has commanded me in Scripture to rectify unjust verdicts or unjust sentences in criminal trials. As a rule, that’s none of my business. I’m not personally responsible for either preventing or requiting all of the evils deeds done around the world. Clearly that’s not even realistic.

At the same time, should I be morally outraged by the fact that a mass murderer became a murder victim? Why?

Just as it’s not my responsibility to wreak vengeance on Dahmer, it’s also not my responsibility to wax indignant over his demise. And, frankly, there’s a certain poetic justice in his violent demise. His comeuppance.

But the fact that someone had it coming doesn’t mean that you or I have a duty to play the avenger. As a rule, that’s none of our business–one way or the other.

We are not the injured party. We aren’t acting in the defense of our dependants. It’s not like protecting my wife and kids from a mugger or house-burglar.

“It is incumbent upon us to pray for Dr. Tiller’s family and all those who were forced to witness the terrible act of violence in a house of worship.”

Sorry, but this is pious nonsense.

i) If Christians want to pray for his family, that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that.

But it’s hardly “incumbent” on Christians to pray for his family. There are far more human tragedies reported every day in news agencies around the world than we can possibly pray for. So we have to be very selective.

Why is it incumbent to pray for his family, but not to pray for almost every other human tragedy which makes it into the news?

ii) Let’s also not confuse prayer with sympathy. I’m not sympathetic to his widow. She should have left him years ago.

We should have no more sympathy for Tiller’s wife than we have for the wife of a Mafia don who lives large on her husband’s ill-gotten gain, then is grief-stricken when her husband is gunned down by a rival mob boss.

Widows and widowers are morally responsible agents. They are complicit in the family business. Let’s not treat them as if they were innocent bystanders. They make calculated choices.

I mean, really–what are we to think of a wife and mother who adores her own children while her husband makes a living from murdering someone else’s children? Let’s not turn a blind eye to what a thoroughly evil person she is. She’s on a par with her husband.

iii) Likewise, we should have no sympathy for the pastor and parishioners who validated his utterly malevolent profession. And it will be a very incongruous funeral, will it not? Tearful eulogies as they mourn the untimely demise of a mass murderer while they can’t spare a tear for the untimely demise his countless victims.

What kind of “house of worship” does Land think this church represents? It might as well be devil worship.

“Forced to witness a terrible act of violence?” Actually, the pastor and parishioners should be forced to go into his abortion clinic and witness the even worse acts of violence that are performed there daily.

“The perpetrator of this violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
I agree that he should be prosecuted. Whether he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law is another matter. Doesn’t that make Land guilty of the very thing he faulted the assailant for? Isn’t Land making himself judge, jury, and executioner by offering that summary judgment? Who needs to hear the evidence? We’ve already handed down the sentence.

Seems to me that Land should at least await the trial before he proceeds to the sentencing phase.

17 comments:

  1. Steve: "I mean, really–what are we to think of a wife and mother who adores her own children while her husband makes a living from murdering someone else’s children? Let’s not turn a blind eye to what a thoroughly evil person she is. She’s on a par with her husband."

    Let's assume you're correct and that Mrs. Tiller is in some way an aider and an abetter to the many abortions that her husband did. So by your argument she was an enabler to the moral evil that was committed, and thereby morally culpable.

    What is the biblical consequence or punishment for being an enabler to moral evil?

    "Likewise, we should have no sympathy for the pastor and parishioners who validated his utterly malevolent profession."

    What divine culpability and consequences do his pastor(s) have, provided they knew of Tiller's occupation as an abortionist? At a base level, have they sinned?

    ReplyDelete
  2. To answer the second question first, they sinned by not subjecting him to church discipline. They did just the opposite. They clearly affirmed the legitimacy of his profession by allowing him to be a member in good standing of that church.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Truth Unites... and Divides said...

    "What is the biblical consequence or punishment for being an enabler to moral evil?"

    At this point, unless she repents and turns to Christ, she will be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve: "To answer the second question first, they sinned by not subjecting him to church discipline."

    See this: "Dr. Tiller does not think of these fetuses as clusters of cancerous cells. He knows they are human because he baptizes some of them before he incinerates them in his own crematorium. You don’t baptize non-humans. Dr. Tiller knows that. He is a practicing Lutheran. His former congregation, Holy Cross of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, excommunicated him as an unrepentant sinner. But the Lutheran Church of the Reformation, which belongs to the ELCA, communes him. Did I mention that he kills 100 human beings every week and has already done away with 60.000? Sixty thousand! In Nuremberg they hanged some fiends for murdering less than 60 -- zero point one percent of Tiller’s toll."

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are a few points I would like to address here.

    In the ELCA, communion is not withheld because someone is an unrepentant sinner. The ELCA believes that everyone is justified as saint and sinner (Luther's simul iustis et peccator)

    "Let’s also not confuse prayer with sympathy. I’m not sympathetic to his widow. She should have left him years ago."Should she have left him? What does that say about the Christian vocation (calling) of marriage?

    "At this point, unless she repents and turns to Christ, she will be damned."I think that's a pretty harsh statement as it excludes God's grace. You criticize Land for being judge, jury and executioner and then you turn around and do the same thing to Mrs. Tiller.

    "Likewise, we should have no sympathy for the pastor and parishioners who validated his utterly malevolent profession."
    Unless you go to that Church, I don't think you're qualified to make that determination. That statement comes off a cold and harsh. When the fact of the matter is there are people who are going to carry this with them for the rest of their lives.

    Whether he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law is another matter. Doesn’t that make Land guilty of the very thing he faulted the assailant for? Isn’t Land making himself judge, jury, and executioner by offering that summary judgment? Who needs to hear the evidence? We’ve already handed down the sentence.In my opinion, no Land is not acting as judge, jury and executioner. I think he's saying to not overlook the fact that a private citizen killed another private citizen. It would be easy to treat this case differently or say the killer should get a lighter sentence because he killed an abortionist. But would justice really be served?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Craig said:

    In the ELCA, communion is not withheld because someone is an unrepentant sinner. The ELCA believes that everyone is justified as saint and sinner (Luther's simul iustis et peccator)
    The question is not whether someone is a sinner. Luther's statement is of course Biblically accurate, as far as it goes. The question is whether the person is unrepentant of an open and obvious sin which has been brought to their attention, and whether such flagrant rebellion is indicative that they lack a credible profession of faith.

    I've looked at the ELCA statement on abortion, and while I may take issue with some of it (and it's very wishy-washy in places), it's largely Biblical. They clearly state they are against abortion after viability, except in life threatening cases. Therefore, I can only assume that the elders in Tiller's church were ignoring their responsibility for church discipline, and as such, are culpable on that basis. OTOH, if it's the ELCA in general that doesn't utilize church discipline, then the entire denomination is culpable.

    http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Abortion.aspx

    As for Tiller's wife, I'd like to hear Steve's rationale for his statement from Scripture before I comment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is an excellent and thoughtful summary. I question you at one point though. You said:
    "But the fact that someone had it coming doesn’t mean that you or I have a duty to play the avenger. As a rule, that’s none of our business–one way or the other.

    We are not the injured party. We aren’t acting in the defense of our dependants. It’s not like protecting my wife and kids from a mugger or house-burglar."

    What of the fact that we know Tiller would have continued to murder. Not to condone his assassin at all, but this fact makes your above statement not apply to Tiller's profession.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CRAIG SAID:

    “In the ELCA, communion is not withheld because someone is an unrepentant sinner.”

    You’re stating the policy to justify the policy. That’s viciously circular. You can’t very well appeal to their policy to justify their policy when the legitimacy of their policy is the very issue in dispute.

    “The ELCA believes that everyone is justified as saint and sinner (Luther's simul iustis et peccator)”

    i) To be a justified sinner, you must be justified by faith. To be justified by faith, you must exercise saving faith.

    ii) Moreover, there is more to Christian soteriology than justification. There’s also a little thing called sanctification.

    iii) Furthermore, Tiller was excommunicated by a confessional Lutheran denomination (LCMS). ELCA theology is out of line with traditional Lutheran theology.

    “What does that say about the Christian vocation (calling) of marriage?”

    It says a wife has a higher calling to God. To take a stand, like Esther, Vashti, and Abigail.

    “I think that's a pretty harsh statement as it excludes God's grace.”

    God’s grace doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Where repentance and faith are absent, grace is absent.

    “You criticize Land for being judge, jury and executioner and then you turn around and do the same thing to Mrs. Tiller.”

    I’m holding Land to his own standard. Answering him on his own grounds. That doesn’t commit me to Land’s standard.

    “Unless you go to that Church, I don't think you're qualified to make that determination.”

    i) I judge that church by its actions. “By your fruits you shall know them.”

    ii) I can also judge a local church by the denomination with which it’s affiliated. The ELCA is a known quantity.

    “That statement comes off a cold and harsh.”

    “Cold and harsh?” To say you lack moral perspective would be an understatement. Let’s put this in context:

    “Dr. Tiller, who is estimated to have performed about 60,000 abortions…”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/28/pro-life-groups-vow-to-fight-sebelius-pick/

    “I used to work in an office across the street from Tiller's clinic in Wichita, KS. I remember the protests. I remember the smoke rising when they ran the medical incinerator.”

    http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2009/06/tiller-bad-man-bad-end-bad-deed.html#4135207938196465425

    “When the fact of the matter is there are people who are going to carry this with them for the rest of their lives.”

    What they should carry with them for the rest of their lives is that fact that they validated the profession of a man who murdered 60,000 babies, give or take.

    “In my opinion, no Land is not acting as judge, jury and executioner. I think he's saying to not overlook the fact that a private citizen killed another private citizen. It would be easy to treat this case differently or say the killer should get a lighter sentence because he killed an abortionist. But would justice really be served?”

    That’s not what he said. He said, “Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.” So, if it were up to him, he’d sentence the assailant to the maximum penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Leslie said...

    “What of the fact that we know Tiller would have continued to murder. Not to condone his assassin at all, but this fact makes your above statement not apply to Tiller's profession.”

    We’re entitled to form value-judgments. To judge between good and evil, even if we’re not a party to the event.

    We’re also entitled to take reasonable actions where possible to minimize evil. But we don’t have the same responsibilities for everyone. God hasn’t put us in that position.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jonah,
    Being a member of the ELCA, I know about the Social Statements and have read them.

    Steve,
    You’re stating the policy to justify the policy. That’s viciously circular. You can’t very well appeal to their policy to justify their policy when the legitimacy of their policy is the very issue in dispute.

    I never stated the policy. The policy does allow for discipline/excommunication of a member of the congregation. Excommunication is used only after all attempts at reconciliation have failed and through due process and due protection of the accused. [ELCA Constitution 20.40.] We don't know how the church was handling this. Anything stated concerning this is pure speculation.

    To be a justified sinner, you must be justified by faith. To be justified by faith, you must exercise saving faith.

    But whose faith is it? Is it our faith or is it's Christ's faith? It comes down to how we translate dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou. Is it a subjective genitive (through faith of Jesus Christ)? Or is it an objective genitive (through faith in Jesus Christ)? Both are possible translations. I would argue that it is a subjective genitive. Faith is a gift of grace, not some work to be done.

    Moreover, there is more to Christian soteriology than justification. There’s also a little thing called sanctification.

    Sanctification is another gift of grace, not a human work.

    Furthermore, Tiller was excommunicated by a confessional Lutheran denomination (LCMS). ELCA theology is out of line with traditional Lutheran theology.

    The ELCA is also a confession Lutheran denomination. And as stated earlier excommunication from the church is a last resort after all attempts of reconciliation have been utilized.

    God’s grace doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Where repentance and faith are absent, grace is absent.

    Is it? I thought grace was the free gift from God despite the fact that we are sinners. If it's not a free gift, then how do we earn it? What possible work would be suitable enough to earn grace? Repentance is meant to bring us back into right relationship with God, not to earn grace.

    “Cold and harsh?” To say you lack moral perspective would be an understatement. Let’s put this in context:
    “Dr. Tiller, who is estimated to have performed about 60,000 abortions…”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/28/pro-life-groups-vow-to-fight-sebelius-pick/
    “I used to work in an office across the street from Tiller's clinic in Wichita, KS. I remember the protests. I remember the smoke rising when they ran the medical incinerator.”
    http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2009/06/tiller-bad-man-bad-end-bad-deed.html#4135207938196465425

    And to say you come off as legalistic is an understatement. Although I would like to point out that nowhere have I condoned what Tiller did.

    In the context of my original statement, I was referring to the members of the congregation. You're deflecting the argument back to Tiller and appealing to emotion.

    That’s not what he said. He said, “Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.” So, if it were up to him, he’d sentence the assailant to the maximum penalty.

    If that's what Land means, I can see your point. Although prosecute means to bring legal action. But I can see how in his statement, it could be implied that the death penalty/maximum sentence should be sought (I don't know if Kansas has the death penalty.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. CRAIG SAID:

    “I never stated the policy.”

    You said: “In the ELCA, communion is not withheld because someone is an unrepentant sinner.”

    That’s a policy statement.

    “The policy does allow for discipline/excommunication of a member of the congregation. Excommunication is used only after all attempts at reconciliation have failed and through due process and due protection of the accused. [ELCA Constitution 20.40.] We don't know how the church was handling this. Anything stated concerning this is pure speculation.”

    You’re missing the point. The primary problem is not that the ELCA failed to excommunicate Tiller. That’s secondary. Downstream.

    The primary problem is upstream. The problem is making him member in the first place. Tiller was an infamous and impenitent child-killer.

    The fact that he was allowed to become a member in the first place is the source of the problem.

    A Bible believing church should only accept into membership those candidates who can make a credible profession of faith. An impenitent child-killer is hardly a credible candidate. And it’s not as if his homicidal profession was a big secret.

    “But whose faith is it? Is it our faith or is it's Christ's faith? It comes down to how we translate dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou. Is it a subjective genitive (through faith of Jesus Christ)? Or is it an objective genitive (through faith in Jesus Christ)? Both are possible translations. I would argue that it is a subjective genitive. Faith is a gift of grace, not some work to be done.”

    i) Did I say faith was a human work? No.

    Anyway, that’s ambiguous. Faith is a mental act. Saving faith is something human beings exercise. God doesn’t believe for us. God is the object of faith, not the subject of faith.

    You’re confounding the source with the effect. The fact that saving faith is the result of divine grace doesn’t change the fact that faith is a human mental act. Rather, grace is the cause, of which faith is the effect. Christians exercise faith in Christ. That’s something we do. It’s not something we do by our own power, but it’s something we do.


    ii) Moreover, the divine source of faith is irrelevant to the point at issue: an impenitent child-killer is an infidel, not a true believer.

    To say that faith is a result of divine grace doesn’t imply that everyone or anyone in particular has faith. That’s a non sequitur. Rather, it means that whoever has faith has it as a result of divine grace. That doesn’t predict for who has it, if anyone.

    “Sanctification is another gift of grace, not a human work.”

    You’re repeating the same mistake. Did I say sanctification was a human work? No.

    The fact that sanctification has its origin in divine grace is irrelevant to who does or doesn’t have the grace of sanctification. The divine source doesn’t predict who in particular is the object of this divine favor.

    An impenitent child-killer is devoid of sanctity.

    “The ELCA is also a confession Lutheran denomination.”

    I’m not someone you can play for the fool with demonstrably false statements. The ELCA is just another liberal denomination, like the PC-USA, EPCUSA, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Is it? I thought grace was the free gift from God despite the fact that we are sinners. If it's not a free gift, then how do we earn it? What possible work would be suitable enough to earn grace? Repentance is meant to bring us back into right relationship with God, not to earn grace.”

    You have a very illogical mind. Did I say anything about earning grace? No.

    If faith and repentance are divine gifts, then the presence or absence of faith and repentance marks the presence or absence of the gifts. How do you know that an individual is gifted with faith and repentance? If he’s a penitent believer, that’s how!

    How do you know that an individual has not been gifted with faith and repentance? If he’s an impenitent unbeliever, that’s how!

    The fact that grace is a divine gift is wholly irrelevant to the question who, in particular, is thusly favored by God. It only means that if an individual exhibits faith, repentance, and sanctity, then that’s the result of God’s grace.

    An impenitent child-killer does not exhibit faith, repentance, and sanctity.

    “And to say you come off as legalistic is an understatement.”

    So the fact that I disapprove of a man who murders 60,000 babies is “legalistic.”

    The NT contains various prescriptions and proscriptions regarding Christian conduct. Call that “legalistic” if you like, but God holds us to a standard.

    “Although I would like to point out that nowhere have I condoned what Tiller did.”

    You condone the church that condoned what he did.

    “In the context of my original statement, I was referring to the members of the congregation. You're deflecting the argument back to Tiller and appealing to emotion.”

    i) To begin with, you were the one who used emotive rhetoric about “harsh and cold.”

    But you evidently don’t think murdering 60,000 babies is harsh and cold.

    ii) No, I’m not deflecting the argument back to Tiller. Rather, I’m making the elementary point that if the parishioners are traumatized by the death of a notorious child-killer, then why aren’t they at least equally (if not more so) traumatized by the death of all the innocent babies who died at his hands?

    Where are you moral priorities? Evidently, you have the same moral priorities as Tiller.

    iii) It also speaks volumes about your spinning moral compass that when I mention the slaughter of 60,000 babies at his hands, you dismiss that as merely “appealing to emotion.” As if their unjust and untimely demise is a merely emotional issue. Couldn’t possibly be an ethical issue of any consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Does that mean it’s my duty to kill Dahmer? No. For one thing, I’m not the injured party. He never harmed my family or me."

    I dislike this analogy because it assumes the Tiller case is one of justice rather than of protecting the innocent. If Dahmer is in jail, there is no suggestion of protecting anyone.

    "I’m not sympathetic to his widow. She should have left him years ago."

    I'm inclined to agree, on the other hand without knowing more about her, many Christians are married to spouses with severe moral failings, and decide to stay with them on the basis of 1Cor 7.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "But the fact that someone had it coming doesn’t mean that you or I have a duty to play the avenger. As a rule, that’s none of our business–one way or the other.

    We are not the injured party. We aren’t acting in the defense of our dependants. It’s not like protecting my wife and kids from a mugger or house-burglar. "

    Prov. 24:10 If you remain indifferent in time of adversity, your strength will depart from you.
    Prov. 24:11 Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not.
    Prov. 24:12 If you say, “I know not this man!” does not he who tests hearts perceive it? He who guards your life knows it, and he will repay each one according to his deeds.

    ReplyDelete
  15. KIM SAID:

    Prov. 24:10 If you remain indifferent in time of adversity, your strength will depart from you.
    Prov. 24:11 Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not.
    Prov. 24:12 If you say, “I know not this man!” does not he who tests hearts perceive it? He who guards your life knows it, and he will repay each one according to his deeds.

    ************************

    I already addressed that issue in response to Leslie's question. Learn how to think instead of blindly reacting to something you read.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kim said...

    "I dislike this analogy because it assumes the Tiller case is one of justice rather than of protecting the innocent. If Dahmer is in jail, there is no suggestion of protecting anyone."

    Our duty to protect others ranges along a continuum. There is, for example, a lot of domestic abuse that goes in behind closed doors in the Muslims world. But it's not my personal responsibility to directly intervene in all, or any, of those situations.

    On the other hand, it is my personal responsibility to defend my own dependents. Then there are other situations which fall somewhere in-between.

    ReplyDelete