In the past decade it has been discovered that at the moment of conception, at our very beginning, in a phase intrinsic to the formation of the first single cell from which we grow, there occurs an eruption of metallic ions that produces a flash of light, or, as embryologists have called it, a ‘zinc spark’. As with so many things in life, how we respond to this knowledge depends on how we choose to look at it. To those to whom the unborn child is ‘just a clump of cells’, this flash of light will be just a flash of light. But to the thoughtful, humble observer, this zinc spark is a signal, a signal that calls to us and invites us to consider its meaning. What we conclude may carry certain implications and charge us with certain responsibilities. But if the signal betokens a reality, and if it matters to us that we live in accordance with reality, then we should be keen to make an accurate interpretation of that signal.
I for one believe that the meaning of the signal is so clear that if I had been seeking merely to fabricate embryological phenomena for the sake of pro-life propaganda, I would have rejected the idea of a ‘zinc spark’ as too obvious, too miraculous, too unequivocal a witness to our humanity. But there it is: the vindication in empirical and impartial observation of the consistent Christian teaching of the ages. Of course even these beginnings are often fragile, and in the hands of God, but in so far as these matters are entrusted to us, the sign is clear: the life of the unborn child is not ours to take.
The ends of our lives can, it is true, be more blurred and complicated, but for the centuries in which Britain was Christian the idea of a ‘natural death’ was broadly accepted: that there comes a point at which the soul that once was ignited in a wink of zinc subsides into embers too cool to revive, and that even if it is sometimes hard for us to tell quite when the soul has departed from the body, this moment is beyond our say-so. For as long as the Christian faith held gentle sway in these islands, we knew that we should take responsibility for each other for the whole duration between these two moments. That belief has, for the present, it seems, come definitively to an end in Britain, given that a fortnight ago the House of Commons made two decisions in the same week that fundamentally undermine this principle, both at the beginning of life, and at its end.
The law’s been passed and I am lying lowHoping to hide from those who think they areKindly, compassionate. My step is slow.I hurry. Will the executionerBe watching how I go?Others about me clearly feel the same.The deafest one pretends that she can hear.The blindest hides her white stick while the lameAttempt to stride. Life has become so dear.from 'Euthanasia’ by Elizabeth Jennings (1926–2001)
The voting through of these Bills, to say nothing of the immaturity and haste of the debates preceding them, has as far as I am concerned brought disgrace on Britain. We are now going downhill distressingly quickly. I want to climb to the rooftops and bellow that I had no part in it; I long to carve into clean stone a testament to my bitter opposition and set it into a wall or a crypt, to be found by such of our descendants as we allow to be born. This is the direct opposite of the Britain that I consider myself to have inherited and which in my small corner I am trying to sustain. I am filled with grief at the prospect of the suffering these Bills will cause if they become law, and, yes, with anger at the short-sightedness and shallow thought of our elected representatives. The shame of Britain, her giggling and smirking as she brings herself low, burns me and torments me.
And yet I do not condemn our Parliamentarians outright. There were many who offered principled and articulate opposition to the Bill. And even those who voted Yes did so with perfectly human instincts, albeit woefully incomplete and ill-formed. They spoke of dignity and freedom and compassion, but I think they were motivated mainly by fear: the fear of dependency, the fear of being depended upon, the fear of suffering, the fear of watching others suffer. By their vote our elected representative have sought to place the sovereign will in the driving seat in the hope that we can each outrun these things, to allow us to take whichever exit we choose off the motorway of life, rather than to remain all together in the same carriage bound for the same terminus. (They also fear having to cede their right of way over the new lives joining us off the slip-roads.) All human beings know these fears, and they are not trivial. But the pagan solution adopted by our MPs reveals that they know nothing of the ‘perfect love that casts out fear’. They do not know the true meaning of the word compassion, which is literally ‘to suffer with’, to share the burden of suffering, and to create an intimate bond with another person, and thereby to defeat the fear and loneliness that is often a sharper sting than the suffering itself. They do not know that Christianity, and indeed the natural law that undergirds all the world’s nobler traditions of wisdom, offers this vital rejoinder to our sorrows: that our humanity is deeper even than our will and our desires, that it is not diminished one jot by suffering, by pain, by weakness, by imminent death. It proclaims that our dignity transcends our indignities. Indeed, our dignity is often found precisely in suffering, and in our caring for those who are suffering.
Britain now feels less like Britain than I can ever remember, and not only because of the weather. My mood is much as it was after the news of Ireland’s repealing of her Eighth Amendment: three parts dismay to one part hope. There is the grief at the wrong decision, and horror at another advance of the Dictatorship of Relativism, building and pressing down like towering heat. Then there is resignation, for none of this really comes as a shock after so many years of secularisation. But there is also a suspicion that the Culture of Death has again overplayed its hand — that the victory was too blatant, too hasty, too enthusiastically crowed over, and that, in its very cheapness, the very ease with which it has been achieved, it has sown the seeds of its own defeat. This article by Sebastian Milbank suggests as much of the Assisted Suicide debate:
Watch the debate. Search the faces and the gestures, listen closely to the words that were spoken. Look beyond the specific arguments, and feel the pulse of feeling, sentiment and motivation racing underneath. The constant back-patting about the good-natured quality of the discussion, the strength and sincerity of feelings, the pure and decent motives of MPs, and cries of “parliament at its best” are not merely the self-congratulations they appear. It is the collective nervous tic of guilty men and women […] This almost unseemly urgency buzzed at the edges of today’s vote. Those in favour continually stressed that doing nothing was worse than doing something, that the “status quo” was untenable. The bill was ideological displacement activity; a release valve for the neuroses of a governing class waking up to a country in crisis, and a public sector on the brink of collapse.
Again, many courageous Parliamentarians have fought honourably against the Assisted Suicide Bill, and their words will remain in Hansard until their final vindication. Also, many will have seen how the Catholic Church has offered some of the strongest opposition. But the abortion Bill was the result of a hijack, an ambush, and rushed through before we could do anything about it. We may still pray that the Bills are heavily amended, and ideally defeated in the House of Lords. If not, then we light another long, slow-burning candle in our hearts for their ultimate repealing. But regardless of what happens, all the while, at the moment of every conception, the zinc spark will continue to send its signal, a gentle but insistent reproach to those who do not believe in life, and a quiet encouragement to those who do.