Zinc Flash and the Imputation of a Soul Part 5

The Implications of Unique Creation

My theory has three broad implications: the first is that a brain is not required for an embryo to be a person. The second is that every human is a greater work of art than any work of art ever created. The third is that there is a definitive point at which life begins. The Christian ethic has always assumed that life begins at fertilization. My theory adds a potential attachment to scientific observation.

One of the primary arguments for the pro-choice movement is that the embryo or fetus is not a viable person until the person develops a brain. Michael S. Gazzaniga with the New York Times writes:

The fact that it is clear that a human brain isn’t viable until week 23, and only then with the aid of modern medical support, seems to have no impact on the debate. This is where neuro “logic” loses out. Moral arguments get mixed in with biology, and the result is a stew of passions, beliefs, and stubborn, illogical opinion. Based on the specific question being asked, I myself have different answers about when moral status should be conferred on a fetus. For instance, regarding the use of embryos for biomedical research, I find the fourteen-day cutoff employed by researchers to be a completely acceptable practice. However, in judging a fetus “one of us,” and granting it the moral and legal rights of a human being, I put the age much later, at twenty-three weeks, when life is sustainable and that fetus could, with a little help from a neonatal unit, survive and develop into a thinking human being with a normal brain. This is the same age at which the Supreme Court has ruled that the fetus becomes protected from abortion.[1]

Gazzaniga cites a Supreme Court Decision, most likely Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. vs. Casey, to support his position that a fetus is not a person until 23 weeks. In Planned Parenthood Southeastern PA. vs. Casey, the plurality opinion states,

Viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid. This is the point at which the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman.” We are satisfied that the line should remain drawn at viability, for the reasons explained above. The soundness or unsoundness of this constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was generally accepted at the time of Roe, 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes occurs today, or some moment even earlier in the pregnancy, as it may in the future.[2]

The Planned Parenthood Southeastern PA. vs. Casey remains the standard by which viability is determined based on the interpretation of the available scientific data. Gazzaniga is not alone in his belief of viability. Similar opinions can be found in Time,[3] The Washington Post,[4] And the Guardian.[5] This argument stems from a post-modern, post-Christian (PMPC) worldview that is both reductionist and materialistic. Under the PMPC framework, all phenomena must be explained exclusively through materialism, as the prevailing paradigm dictates that science is the sole method of discovering truth. However, as a methodology, science cannot validate itself through physical observation because it is not a physical phenomenon but a conceptual framework for understanding the physical world. Consequently, the PMPC framework lacks any explanation for non-physical phenomena.

The UC theory bridges the gap between Christian and PMPC worldviews by linking an observed physical phenomenon—the zinc flash—with a metaphysical proposition. This connection enables those grounded in a PMPC perspective to expand their scope of truth beyond the scientific. To simplify, a person begins to exist at some point in human development, though the consensus on when this occurs remains uncertain. Christians traditionally default to fertilization, while the PMPC perspective often relies on subjective interpretations or societal consensus, such as the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision. A subjective interpretation can be illustrated by the change from 28 to 23 weeks viability. While the scientific data supports the transition, the moral consequences of the change should not be left to a person or society because they are fickle and selfish, as history teaches us with people like Jose Mengele, organizations like Unit-731 or Societies like the Aztecs, NSDAP Germany, or Soviet Russia. Life or death should not be decided based on the whims of society but on objective truths that transcend human nature. Human life must be anchored in an objective moral code. To further dialog with the PMPC perspective, the zinc flash provides a unifying discussion point, anchoring both the observable and the metaphysical. It also supports the Christian claim that life begins at fertilization, linking this theological view with a scientifically observed phenomenon.

The second point illustrates the unique nature of every person conceived and that each person is a work of art. There have never been two identical people in all human history, and there never will be. Let’s put this in terms of art. The Mona Lisa, The Starry Night, and The Scream are all considered great works of art, and they are utterly unique because all the artists are dead and can never recreate them. Even if they were still alive, the brush strokes, exact shading, and pressure could never be reproduced perfectly. Now, let’s put this in terms of a person. The UC theory states that three parties create both the physical and the soul. The mother and father donate physical and soul parts, while God knits them all together. An example of uniqueness can be seen in identical twins. The twins share the same egg and sperm, yet many parents of twins will attest that they can be very different, even from birth. The intangible differences between twins arise from the soul’s creation, the result of contributions from all three parties.

What is society’s role in protecting unique works of art? During World War II, the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Services Section Unit (MFAA) was created to save priceless works of art. In some cases, lives were risked and lost to save art from being lost or destroyed. Art is preserved because it represents its creator’s irreplaceable creativity and vision. Similarly, every human being represents the miraculous and divine act of creation. Unlike art, however, humans are dynamic—capable of growth, love, innovation, and transformation. What does it say about a civilization willing to save static works of art but willing to discard living works that can grow, improve, and change the world? This inconsistency reveals a troubling disparity in societal values. The term “clump of cells” illustrates this devaluation by reducing the divine and miraculous nature of human creation to a mere biological process, stripping away the intrinsic worth of the individual being.

History has shown the devastating consequences of devaluing human life, from genocides to systems of oppression where individuals were treated as commodities or burdens. If we are willing to protect and revere static works of art for their uniqueness, how much more should we protect human life, which reflects the ultimate act of creation? Every person is a masterpiece, combining the tangible, intangible, physical, and divine. To disregard this truth is to diminish the individual and the society that fails to uphold it.

My final point concerns the zinc flash and its connection to the embryo or fetus. It challenges the narrative that personhood is dependent on brain development. Assuming the hypothesis is correct—that the zinc flash signifies the imputation of the soul at fertilization—it follows that personhood begins immediately at this moment. The zinc flash, observed as a measurable physical phenomenon, serves as a tangible marker for a metaphysical event—the beginning of personhood.

This immediacy of personhood has profound ethical implications: it means that every time a pregnancy ends early, whether through miscarriage or abortion, it represents the loss of a human life. This idea resonates with the emotional realities of many women. Anecdotally, women who have experienced miscarriages often describe a deep sense of loss, while some who have had abortions report feelings of guilt, shame, and grief years later.[6] [7] [8]

These experiences highlight the profound emotional weight of decisions regarding the preborn and suggest an intuitive recognition of personhood. However, this perspective contrasts with the findings of The Emotions and Decision Rightness study, which reports that 99% of women do not regret their abortion decisions after five years. While the study’s longitudinal design and retention rates are commendable, its participation and sample sizes raise questions about the generalizability of its findings.[9] The important part of the study is the method by which they conducted the study:

Analyses include eleven waves of phone interview data, conducted at baseline – approximately eight days after care-seeking – and semiannually thereafter for five years. Baseline interviews asked about sociodemographic characteristics and pregnancy and abortion circumstances, including decision difficulty and perceived community abortion stigma. All interviews asked about emotions and decision rightness. Women received $50 gift cards after each interview. Five-year interviews were completed in January 2016. Overall, 37.5% of eligible women consented to participate, and 85% of those women completed baseline interviews (n = 956). Among those, 93% completed at least one follow-up interview, and 71% completed an interview in the final two years of the study.[10]

The methodology used provided a study where 2,549 women were invited to contribute, with 956 (37.5%) completing the baseline interview. Of these participating women, 678 completed the final interview. The developed theory was then formulated on the opinions of 26.59% of the original 2,549 eligible women. This raises the possibility of selection bias, as participants may have self-selected based on their positive feelings about the decision. The authors counter this by noting that stigma, rather than emotions, likely influenced participation. However, this assumption does not entirely rule out the potential for bias, particularly given the highly personal and polarizing nature of abortion. The authors state, “Finally, as we have discussed at length elsewhere (Rocca et al., 2015), the relatively low participation rate might elicit questions about selection bias. However, 38% of enrollment in a five-year study among women seeking a stigmatized health service is in line with other large-scale studies, and we have no reason to believe women would select into the survey based on how their emotions would change over five years.”[11]

Additionally, the study’s sample size of 956 women represents only 0.035% of the 2.7 million abortions performed during the study period. While the authors argue that their participation rate is comparable to other studies of stigmatized health services, it remains unclear whether their findings adequately capture the full range of emotional experiences, particularly those of women who may have felt regret but declined to participate.

Despite these limitations, the study’s methodology does have strengths, including high retention rates (93% of participants completed at least one follow-up) and repeated data collection over five years. However, further research with larger, more diverse samples is needed to validate its findings and address the complexities of women’s emotional responses to abortion decisions. Based on these acknowledgments, it is reasonable to assume that 99% of women out of 2.7 million are not happy with their abortions. A larger study with more participants is warranted to establish a better representation of 2.7 million women.

The zinc flash offers a unique opportunity to connect scientific observation with the belief that life begins at fertilization. It bridges the gap between Christian theological truth and empirical evidence by serving as a visible marker of the transition from potential to actual human life. While further exploration is needed, the zinc flash provides a starting point for a broader discussion about the physical and spiritual dimensions of personhood, challenging reductionist narratives and affirming the dignity of the preborn.

Recognizing the zinc flash as the beginning of life has profound societal and commercial implications. It encourages a cultural shift toward valuing the preborn as unique individuals at fertilization with inherent dignity. This perspective challenges current practices and policies that reduce the preborn to expendable entities, calling for a reevaluation of how society defines and protects life. Furthermore, it shifts the philosophical debate about personhood from subjective criteria, such as viability or cognitive development, to an objective event representing the physical and metaphysical union. Understanding that life begins at the zinc flash cannot erase the pain of pregnancy loss but provides clarity and strengthens the pro-life argument. It equips advocates with a powerful scientific and metaphysical basis for challenging the ambiguity surrounding when life begins. This understanding calls on policymakers, medical professionals, and individuals to reconsider the moral and legal frameworks surrounding abortion and miscarriage, ensuring that every human life is recognized and protected.

Additionally, acknowledging the inherent dignity of life from the moment of the zinc flash raises ethical concerns about the commercial use of aborted fetal body parts in research and industry. The practice of harvesting and monetizing fetal tissue not only commodifies human life but also perpetuates a view of the preborn as material assets rather than persons with intrinsic value. These practices, often justified under the guise of scientific progress, provoke serious moral questions about the societal willingness to profit from terminated pregnancies. Recognizing the zinc flash as the definitive beginning of life challenges these industries to align their practices with an ethic that respects human dignity, forcing a reexamination of both research policies and economic incentives tied to fetal tissue use. This perspective not only strengthens the pro-life argument but also underscores the need for transparent and ethical standards in medical and commercial practices involving the preborn.

[1] Michael S. Gazzaniga, “The Ethical Brain,” The New York Times, June 19, 2005, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html.

[2] Planned Parenthood vs. Case, 505 U.S. 833, 870, Justia U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 1992, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/.

[3] Adam Lewkowitz and Nina Ayala, “The Politicization of Fetal Viability,” Time, July 14, 2021, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://time.com/6196775/fetus-prioritized-before-pegnancy-viable/.

[4] Ariana Eunjung Cha and Rachel Roubein, “Fetal viability is at the center of Mississippi abortion case. Here’s why.” The Washington Post, December 1, 2021, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/01/what-is-viability/.

[5] Tracy McVeigh, “Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I’d known then what I do now, I’d have wanted him to die in my arms,” The Guardian, March 21, 2011, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/20/nathan-born-premature-life-death.

[6] “Abortion Regrets: Stories from Real Women,” Sira, August 24, 2022, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.siragainesville.com/post/abortion-regrets-stories-from-real-women.

[7] Markus MacGill, “Depression after abortion: Risk factors and how to cope,” Medical News Today, May 31, 2023, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/313098.

[8] D Brown, TE Elkins, DB Larson, “Prolonged grieving after abortion: a descriptive study,” National Library of Medicine, Summer 1993, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8334275/.

[9] Corinne H. Rocca, Goleen Samari, Diana G. Foster, Heather Gould, Katrina Kimport, “Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: An examination of decision difficulty and abortion stigma,” Science Direct, March, 2020, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619306999?via%3Dihub.

[10] Corinne H. Rocca, Goleen Samari, Diana G. Foster, Heather Gould, Katrina Kimport, “Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: An examination of decision difficulty and abortion stigma,” Science Direct, March, 2020, accessed December 6, 2024, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619306999?via%3Dihub.

[11] Ibid.,