Questions and Answers on Abortion

NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: This is not intended to be an argument against

abortion. Many such arguments exist already, written by people much more
qualified than I. The purpose of this paper is to provide answers to
hypothetical questions about my viewpoint (that of a pro-life Christian). If
you were to ask me these questions in person, these are what my responses
would be (though they would likely be less coherent, as I am not a good
speaker). As such, there are likely many logical or statistical errorindeed, I
would be surprised if there were none. I want to apologize for this in
advance, and hope it does not dissuade from taking my answers seriously.
I also want to mention that long sections are not necessarily more
important, nor are short sections necessarily less important. Many sections
are short because I do not wish to repeat what I wrote earlier on; many
sections are long because my thoughts are less coherent and thus less
succinct. It is up to the reader to determine which sections merit additional
attention and which do not. In addition, there is not a particular order, other
than the order the questions occurred to me. Nevertheless, I believe this is
informative, and hope you read it through (though if the thought of reading a
few thousand words of my internal monologue bores you feel free to skip to
whatever section interests you the most). Now, lets get to the actual
questions.

Youre a man. You have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
This is probably the most common argument Ive heard from pro-
choice individuals. If this matter werent regarding another human life, I
would likely be in agreement. If you desire to wear revealing clothing and
behave promiscuously, that is your choice (though I should mention that I do
not approve of this behavior. In addition, to my Christian sisters, there are
biblical arguments against this sort of behavior). But since this matter does
concern human life, there is a reason for me to chime in, as this is an
abomination which must be stopped.
Consider, perhaps, an analogy involving a car (specifically, your own
car). Since it is your car, you can paint it however you want, upgrade parts,
whatever you please. When driving, you can drive however you please,
including as recklessly as you please. However, if you have a passenger in
your car, you become restricted. You can still decorate it however you would
like, but when driving you have a responsibility to your passenger to drive
safely to their destination. You should not engage in reckless driving during
the course of the trip. You certainly cannot push the passenger out of the car
before arriving at the destination. Now, I realize this analogy is imperfect, but
hopefully it conveyed the point clearly enough.
If my analogy proved to be confusing, I would summarize it as this: just
because your human body contains another living human does not mean you
have complete and utter control over that humans life. On the contrary, it
means you are responsible for protecting and nourishing it for the duration of
your pregnancy (after that, if you still despise it or lack the means to raise it,
put your child up for adoption). It also means that I am responsible for not
sitting idly by while I watch people call abortion a fundamental right. I have a
moral obligation to something; what that something is I know not, but I
nevertheless must pursue some course of action.

You dont know/will never know what its like to be pregnant.

This is correct, obviously. As a man, I will never be pregnant, thus, I will
never have that perspective. I will never know the joy or the pain, the
connection or the isolation, or any of the bittersweet emotions which
accompany pregnancy. For these reasons I will never tell a pregnant woman
she cannot feel a certain emotion regarding the process of her pregnancy
(though I would certainly try to offer comfort or support throughout the
process). Unless I were confident that the baby or womans safety, health, or
well-being were in danger I would defer to the woman as here perspective on
this matter is more insightful.

Women dont want to get abortions, they only get them as a last resort and
put a lot of thought into the decision.
Here I must apologize for myself and other pro-life individuals. I realize
that much of the pro-life rhetoric makes it sound like abortions are trivial
matters for pro-choice individuals (indeed, Im sure my own writing falls into
this trap as well). Yet we are fully aware that abortions are far from trivial.
Most people I know who have gotten abortions have put a great deal of
thought into it. But it matters little if a great deal of thought is put into the
matter and the outcome is still killing an unborn child. As for the strong
rhetoric, it is the product of speaking out against a murderous injustice.
Whether such strong rhetoric is necessary (or even appropriate) is up for
debate, but I personally do not know how to convey the seriousness of this
issue without speaking so bluntly.

An embryo/fetus isnt human so your argument is invalid.

I admittedly havent actually heard this argument phrased exactly this
way, but I decided to summarize it a bitafter all, this is what people really
mean when they say some extended variation of this. And this is admittedly
the biggest problem with the pro-choice v. pro-life debate. One side holds
that an embryo/fetus isnt human, therefore this is a womens rights issue;
the other side holds that an embryo/fetus is human, therefore this is a
human rights issue (specifically, the rights of the embryo/fetus). I will discuss
fetus development in a later answer so here I will simply provide an idea to
ponder. If the pro-choice side is right and the pro-life side wrong, then
millions of women will have been deprived of a basic human rights, a terrible
injustice. However, if the pro-life side is right and the pro-choice side is
wrong, then fifty million babies in the US alone were murdered in the past
four decades (if you want to talk about worldwide, this number is between
forty and fifty million every year, a far more heinous statistic). These are the
only two options, and one side has to be right. Even if you disagree with the
biblical, philosophical, and scientific reasons against abortion which I
subscribe to, it seems logical to apply the precautionary principle and
abstain from abortion.

How can you call yourself pro-life when you dont care about people after
they come out of the womb?
This is a sentiment Ive heard a lot recently, especially on Facebook
and other social media platforms. This argument is not so much a defense of
the pro-choice standpoint (indeed, it is not a defense at all) as it is an ad
hominem attack of pro-life individuals. This fails to address the morality of
the pro-choice v. pro-life argument and instead turns the focus to other
issues. Though not explicitly stated, it is reasonable to assume the implied
issues include police brutality, immigration, and refugee admission, as well
as a myriad of social services, including healthcare and social security.
Making the reasonable assumption that many pro-life individuals are
conservative (obviously not all, and there are many liberal individuals who
are pro-life, but I believe this is a reasonable assumption), and thus against
many of the social programs instituted by this country, the argument for
human rights is reversed. It is actually a fairly clever tactic but nevertheless
is inadequate for various reasons (not the least of which is that those who
use this argument accuse themselves at the same time).
First and foremost, the pro-life v. pro-choice debate concerns a human
life (again, if you disagree with this premise, I recommend you look to
individuals wiser and more learned than myself for why people such as
myself hold this view). Thus, while defunding healthcare or preventing
refugees from entering the country results in some probability of death for
some individualsperhaps even a high probability in some casesabortion
is a certainty. Put succinctly, not everyone deprived of healthcare will die
because of this depravationbut every abortion will result in a prompt and
certain end to life.
That being said, I will acknowledge that the Church in the United States
has, on the whole, done a terrible job of providing for those in need, despite
it being the second greatest commandment (and this is arguably
incorporated into the firstsee Matthew 25:41-46). This is mostly due to
Christianity becoming watered down in America, but of course that is no
justification for abandoning those in need. Many people oppose social
services on the grounds that they believe the government shouldnt provide
these services, that they should be provided by private organizations (like
churches and charities). I myself subscribed to this philosophy for quite some
time, believing that the local church was responsible for caring for the needy;
and indeed, I still hold this as the ideal. But since the Church has fallen short
on this front for quite some time, I see such government services as
necessary (though I do wish they would be implemented more effectively).
That being said, I personally have yet to support a mainstream candidate
advocating these social services as they are nearly always pro-choice (I am
also nineteen at the time of writing this and have only participated in one
election). And as I made clear in my previous paragraph, the issue of
abortion is far more urgent than that of socialized medicine.

In the paper you used talked about life beginning at conception. How do
you know thats when life begins?
Lets look at some of the notable markers in the development of a
fetus. Around six weeks after conception a babys fingers will have begun to
develop. Four weeks after conception, facial features begin to take shape,
and a babys heart (which formed during week three) is pumping blood. But
this is not when life begins. Life begins during fertilization, during which time
the sperm and egg combine to create new DNA, distinct from the mother and
father. At this point, the combined egg and sperm (called a zygote, if my
memory of freshman biology serves me correctly) has met all the criteria for
biological life. Many people will argue that since this zygote does not
resemble the humans we see in our day-to-day lives that it is not human. But
it is biologically a member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, so why
should it not be treated as such? The most common answer to this question I
have heard is a zygote/embryos inability to function without the mother, a
point which I will address in the next response.

Abortions arent [usually] legal after 16/18/20/some number of weeks, and a

fetus isnt viable until after that, so its not infanticide.
Again, Ive summarized/editorialized a bit; I apologize if it offends you.
This argument is correct in its claim that a fetus is not viable prior to
16/18/20/some number of weeks (Ive heard different numbers from different
people). The earliest preterm babies ever recorded to have lived were born
during their 21st or 22nd week. But just because a fetus is not viable does not
detract from its personhood. As I mentioned in the previous response, organ
development occurs very early on, and distinct DNA is created during
fertilization, making it a member of the human race. Since humanity is
created in the image of God, it does not matter whether a person is a zygote,
embryo, fetus, child, or adultwe all have innate worth. Whether or not a
person can function without the aid of technology has no bearing on their
reflection of God.
Now, some states and countries allow abortions in the third trimester
when the mothers life is in jeopardy or there are other extreme
circumstances. These cases are addressed later on.

What about abortion in cases of rape and incest?

Im hesitant to say this, as I realize it will discredit my views to many
peopleespecially given that Im a manbut since a human life is a human
life, I dont view rape or incest as a valid reason for an abortion. It goes
without saying that rape is a horrific tragedy; likewise, incest a disgusting
deed. Nevertheless, a human life is a human life. We are all created in Gods
image, obtaining our value from this fact and this fact alone. The fact that
the circumstances behind the pregnancy are abominable does not change
the fact that the unborn child is created in the image of God. To punish the
child for the actions of the rapist is unfair. I realize that it is also unfair to ask
a woman to carry a baby she did not want for nine months, especially after
having been abused and raped, but the alternative is to kill an innocent baby.
An abortion wont remove the memory of a rape. It admittedly might make it
more bearable in the short-term, but long-term, the consequences for the
woman are the same. For the child, they are not.

What about abortion if the childs quality of life will be bad (e.g. physical
deformity, mental illness)?
My answer here is the same as the previous question: no. We are all
still created in the image of God and obtain our value for this reason only. As
such, a person is no less valuable because they are disabled or suffer from a
mental illness. Some people even try to use the argument that the child
wouldnt want to live. Even if this were true (though I would seldom think it
to be true, if it is ever true), it would still not be an acceptable reason for an
abortion (hence why Christianity condemns suicide). As I have said three
times in the past two questions, we are created in Gods image and must
honor that fact.

What about abortion if the mothers life is in danger?

This is probably the most difficult question to answer, purely because it
deals with a large amount of uncertainty. My unsatisfying answer is simply I
dont know. I dont have an answer to this question. For the sake of honesty, I
will offer my very incoherent thoughts on this matter below, but keep in mind
that my answer remains I dont know.
On one hand, I dont think I could possibly look a pregnant woman in
the eye and tell her she needs to put her life in jeopardy in order to possibly
bring a child into the world. To do so would be disrespectful, as well as failing
to acknowledge the fact that she, too, is created in the image of God. If we
simply go by numbers, either zero, one, or two people die in this situation.
The course of action with the least number of unknowns, and thus the safest
course of action, is abortion here. This is especially true when considering
certain cases where the child is guaranteed to die (e.g. ectopic pregnancies)
but is currently alive, and to carry the child would risk the mothers life. I
dont think anyone (ok, Im sure theres some people who would disagree
with me) would say abortion is not an option here.
On the other hand, my big fear with allowing abortions when the
mothers life is in danger is deciding where to draw the line. At what point is
the risk great enough to decided abortion is a viable and/or necessary
option? All pregnancy involves some amount of risk (forget pregnancy;
everything in life involves some amount of risk). I realize that quantitating
this is quite difficult, but for the sake of argument lets imagine its possible.
In the US the chance of dying from pregnancy is less than 0.02%. Obviously,
such a low risk doesnt justify an abortion. Nor would 0.1%. But what if its
1%? Or 10%? How much risk justifies an abortion? Whose call will it be? And
where is the line drawn? For example, if I say 10% risk is the line, am I really
going to tell a woman with a 10.1% chance of dying that she cant get an
abortion?
There is also the question of when risk is worth it. I can only conjecture
right now, as Im an unmarried 19-year-old man with no children, but I
believe I can say with absolute certainty that I would risk my life for my
future kids. Even if there are only two outcomeseither I die with my child,
or we both liveI believe I would risk it, regardless of the odds. Obviously,
this has some significant differences between this vague hypothetical and
pregnancy, but the point remains: some risk is worth it. Which risks are
worthwhile is a far harder question to answer, and one which I will not
endeavor to do here, but it is important to consider this.
As I conclude, I wish to restate what I said a few paragraphs ago: I
dont know what to do in this case. As you have just read, I do have thoughts
on this matter, but none of them are definitive enough to draw a conclusion,
aside from the obvious: that endangering the mothers life is the only reason
I would consider abortion a possibility. But in the end, I just dont know.

Youre probably just pro-life because you grew up in a pro-life/conservative

household.
While this isnt a valid argument (indeed, it is just another ad hominem
attack), I will still address it. Yes, I was raised in a conservative and pro-life
household. No, I did not always hold this viewthere was a length of time in
high school when I was pro-choice. This stance switched back to pro-life once
I examined scripture, and was further solidified by reading about fetus
development.

If you ban abortions then women will have to resort to dangerous back-alley
abortions, which places them and their child at a greater risk.
Thats probably true, though a bit misleading. Im willing to bet that if
abortion was made illegal and/or criminalized, the majority of pregnant
women would simply go through with the pregnancy. Yes, a small minority of
women would likely seek back-alley abortions, but most would simply accept
their child or give their child up for adoption. Of course, this is only me
theorizing; I could be completely wrong. But even if I am, it does not matter,
because a life is still a life. The killing of unborn children is not somehow
less wrong simply because some women risk their lives to do so. You dont
ignore the morality of a problem simply because the solution is inconvenient.

You referred to a zygote/embryo/fetus as it multiple times throughout this

paper. How can you claim that theyre people if you cant even call them by
the proper pronouns?
 According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of it includes the
following: a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded. Im not
sure what else I need as an argument; I have the dictionary on my side.

Ok, lets imagine abortions are banned. How do you propose we deal with a
huge population influx, as well as the many abandoned/orphaned children
who will inevitably appear?
Im hesitant to write a full response to this question for fear of bringing
up the same points again and sounding like a broken record; thus, I shall try
to keep this response succinct. For those worried about the potential
population influx: this is a valid concern. Many cities and urban areas are
overpopulated as it is, and an influx of children would undoubtedly make
overcrowding worse. But as I have said multiple times, these concerns do not
justify the murder of millions of childrennor do any other concerns. Nothing
can justify this sort of unwarranted mass murder.
Now, to address the issue of abandoned and orphaned children: part of
my response is the same as the above. Killing unborn children to prevent an
influx of orphans is not an acceptable course of action (as a side note, this
line of thinking reminds of Ebenezer Scrooges line of thinking in A
Christmas Carol). So, let us assume a rise in orphans. Perhaps this is wishful
thinking, but I would like to think that a society so concerned with the well-
being of their neighbors (or at the very least, those with liberal leanings
claim this to be true) would rise to the occasion. If the number of orphans
and foster children rose drastically, I optimistically believe that the number
of foster parents and adoptions would rise as well. You can feel free to
disagree, and Im sure you could make a compelling argument as to why Im
wrong, but in this matter (as in many others), I choose to have faith.

Most pro-life individuals are against Planned Parenthood (PP) as well; are
you?
Yes, yes I am. Again, I will defer to wiser and more learned individuals
than myself for a complete argument as to why I oppose this organization,
but I shall attempt to summarize my thoughts in a few paragraph for those
curious about the general reasons.
First, I disagree with the argument that without PP women would be
without health providers. There are but 665 PP clinics nationwide, yet over
13,500 clinics (excluding PP clinics) across the country which provide similar
serviceswithout offering abortions. I realize that the quality of these clinics
may be lower than that of PP (though Im sure many are on par or better).
But even if only 1 in 10 clinics is on par with PP, theres still twice as many
non-PP clinics nationwide than PP clinics. And thats only considering the
13,500 number I foundIm sure theres more local clinics not included in
this number. Now Im afraid Im going to rely on statistics (a dangerous
move, as I will point out in my next paragraph; nevertheless, quantitative
arguments have some merit). Going by the numbers I just provided, we can
see that PP represents less than 5% of all clinics offering health services; yet
in 2014 they provided nearly half of all abortions in the United States.
This leads into my second reason for defunding PPbecause abortions
are a major source of revenue (note that I say a, not the). I realize that the
3% number (that is, that only 3% of PP services are abortions) is often
thrown around, but I would caution anyone against using this as a defense of
PP, as statistics are notoriously misleading (a hypocritical statement I admit,
as I relied on statistics in the previous paragraph; nevertheless, statistics are
a helpful way to judge somethings merit). I wont go into the details here as
that would require a full paper in itself; however, I will say that considering
what qualifies a service for PP, as well as how many services overlap, is a
crucial piece of information which I urge everyone who uses this statistic to
look into.
For the sake of brevity, I shall end my response here. However, I once
again urge anyone truly interested in this topic to do their own research and
come to their own conclusions on Planned Parenthood, or at the very least
read articles and books by individuals more knowledgeable about this topic.

What do you think about the Womans March?

This question isnt directly related to abortion, but I figured some
people would wonder what I thought so Ive included it. I will also preface this
answer by saying I did not attend any of the marches, so I cannot offer a
firsthand perspective; all the information I use is from social media, news,
and talking with friends who did attend.
If the march were simply about womens rights, I would be all for it. I
agree that women are underrepresented in this countrys government,
treated unequally in many situations (e.g. salary, intellectual stereotypes),
and their differences from men are not properly acknowledged (e.g. period
policies, maternity leave). That being said, the march seemed to center
around the issue of womens health, meaning it focused on abortion quite a
bit. Now, Im not going disparage or condemn a movement or group of
people simply because I dont agree with some of their beliefs or ideas. If I
did that, I wouldnt be able to associate with the American evangelical
movement. But abortion seemed to play such a central role that Im afraid I
cant condone it.
In addition, I heard many stories, both on the news and from friends
who attended, that individuals with a pro-life stance were not welcome at
many of the marches (obviously this is not necessarily true for all the
marches, but friends in SF and D.C. confirmed this at their respective
marches). Im sure most of you have read about these stories on the news so
I will not repeat them here; however, so long as this movement focuses on
abortion and refuses to accept different views I cannot associate with or
approve of these movements.
I realize the previous paragraphs makes me, as well as those who
share my views, like uncompromising extremists, so let me elaborate briefly,
though it is not related to the question. I would have no qualms teaming up
with pro-choice individuals on a platform of economic equality for women.
This is a single issue; thus, individuals are either for it or against it (I realize
there are complexities within each issue, but for the sake of argument Im
simplifying it). But if the movement includes a second divisive issue, such as
LGBTQ issues, suddenly there are four options: against both, for both, or for
one and against the other (there are two ways for this last one to be
arranged). The womens march took a stance on a number of issues, thus
increasing the probability that people such as myself would disagree with it.

Some researchers have theorized that the decrease in crime in the late 80s
and 90s was due to abortions becoming legal. If abortions were banned, the
crime rate might increase again. What do you think about that?
Before I answer this I shall summarize the theory in question for
anyone unaware. In general, crime tends to arise in low-income and
impoverished areas. When people have children their economic status tends
to decrease somewhat, as raising children is expensive. For example, if you
make $5,000 a month and you suddenly have a child which costs $1,000 a
month to raise, all your other expenses (e.g. as rent, car, groceries) must
decrease by 20% to account for the cost of the child. Because of this, many
individuals are forced to relocate to lower-income areas. This is, of course,
making the assumption that the individuals in question are not prepared for
the child; in other words, it is an unplanned pregnancy. Now, for some reason
or another unplanned pregnancy was on the rise in the 60s and 70s (perhaps
due to countercultural revolution at the time; perhaps unplanned pregnancy
no longer resulted in shotgun weddings; perhaps parents provided less aid to
their children). So, in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, crime increased, as a
number of unplanned children grew up in low-income areas which often
prompted criminal activity. However, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion
nationwide in 1973, unplanned pregnancy decreased rapidly; thus, the crime
rate decreased as well. Now, if this theory offends you, I apologize, and ask
you to remember that it was not proposed by me; I am simply trying to recite
it to the best of my recollection.
Now, to actually answer the question: If abortion were banned and the
crime rate rose again, I would see that as a serious failure on the part of both
individual families and the education system. Morals and values are
imprinted on children first and foremost by their family. If criminal activity
increases, it is because parents fail to emphasize morality in the household.
This could take the form of either emphasizing incorrect morality or failing to
emphasize correct morality; regardless of the specific course of action, it
represents a failure on the parents part.
I also consider it a failure on the part of the education system because
it serves a similar role (I believe it unfortunate that the family unit has
become so weak that the education system is forced to step in and perform
many parental obligations. However, I recognize this failure, and am not
opposed to using the education system to help solve this problem). However,
if crime were to significantly increase, it would mean that a childs schooling
also failed to impress the necessity of morality upon them. Of course, there
is another possibility: that the education system is imparting incorrect morals
or relative morality upon children. I realize this is a gray area, as well as a bit
ironic considering the subject at hand. Nevertheless, I would hope that there
would never be a time or reason for schools to condone crime.
In the end, I will repeat the statement/sentiment I have said multiple
time: You dont ignore the morality of a problem simply because the solution
is inconvenient. Yes, a rise in crime would be a significant blow to the country
(and others) economically, socially, etc. But fear of this problem, or fear of
solving this problem, does not justify abortion.

If life begins at conception then what do you think about birth control?
This question is hard to answer in specifics simply because there are so
many forms of birth control out there. As a generic statement, any form of
birth control which is intended to kill or destroy a fertilized egg I would
consider unacceptable. As such, I would consider certain forms of Plan B and
Birth Control Pills acceptable, while other I would not. Anything that prevents
sperm or eggs from uniting (such as condoms, as well as many of the
implants and devices on the market) I would also consider acceptable. And
obviously, abstinence and pulling out are also viable options, though the
latter can be a bit risky (and both of these are looked down upon by the
majority of society nowadays).

I had an abortion and Im not Christian. Do you think Im going to hell?

If you have not placed your faith in Christ Jesus, you will go to hell.
Whether or not youve had an abortion has no bearing on this fact. I realize
that this bluntness may convey a lack of compassion on this issue; however,
I vehemently stress that this is not the case. I desperately hope that anyone
reading this who is unsaved will become saved. My purpose in being so blunt
and direct is to convey the gravity of this situation (that is, the gravity of sin
and salvation). The joy of knowing Jesus is something I am unable to properly
describe and is attainable through the simple command Jesus repeated many
times: repent and believe.
I could write pages upon pages on this, but to avoid a multiple-page
tangent I will save that for another time and simply end with this: God can
save you, and if you repent and believe in Him, He will save you, no matter
what youve done.

I had an abortion and Im a Christian. Do you think Im going to hell?

Absolutely not. If youve placed your faith in Christ Jesus, you are
saved, end of story. Whether youve had an abortion or not has no bearing
on your salvation. There is no sin you can commit which will result in your
salvation being revoked (If youre a theological nerd you might bring up the
one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Without going into detail
about this concept here, I will simply say that there is a difference between
what God can forgive and what He will forgive; in the end, all the sins of the
elect are forgiven). Now, dont get me wrong, abortion is not to be trivialized.
It is a serious matter. But as Romans 8:1, says, there is no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus. So if you have had an abortion, Jesus has
already forgiven you.

If an aborted baby is a human being, then that means it has to go to either

heaven or hell. Where does it go?
This is a tricky subject, as the Bible doesnt explicitly answer this
question. If youre asking for my personal view, then I would answer heaven.
I believe all unborn children, as well as those killed in infancy, will go to
heaven, for they are incapable of accepting the Gospel, and thus are not
without excuse (Romans 1:20). Of course, there is scriptural ambiguity on
this subjectLuke 18 supports my view, Romans 5 opposes it; 2 Samuel 12
supports my view, John 3 opposes it. In the end, I simply trust that God is
good and merciful, and know that whatever he decides is both just and right.

How can you call abortion murder when your God killed hundreds of
thousands of people in the Old Testament?
Because God decided to kill those people in the Old Testament, not me.
God created everything; thus, He has a right to do with creation what He
sees fit. Like I mentioned in a previous argument, God is also good, just,
righteous, and without contradiction. So if He decided to kill them, it was a
righteous act of judgment. By comparison, I am but a mere human, a created
being. If I get an abortion, it is murder, for I am not righteous and have no
right to kill anyone unlawfully (I realize that I am obviously incapable of
getting an abortion, as I am not a woman; however, I opted to use the
pronoun me since the pronouns you, she, and they sound somewhat
accusatory, something I wish to avoid). I use the word lawfully here for two
reasons. One, because any time God kills anyone, it is lawful, for He is
righteous and holy and thus capable of carrying out judgment. Two, because
Im sure some people reading this are ready to cite war or the death penalty
as an individual carrying out judgment on their own (I do not want to enter a
tangent on warfare or the death penalty here, as I am unsure on my own
stance. I will say, however, that a system of government carrying out justice
is different from an individual carrying out justice).