Bioethics on the Beginning of Life: Bioscience and Religious
Culture in an Age of Crisis
This article is a revision of a public lecture
hosted by this Institute on 14 November 2006.

Susumu Shimazono

1. The End of Human Beings?

R

ECENTLY there has been much news on the topic of bioethics. Oneof them which I was most concerned with was about a woman who
was afflicted with uterine cancer, got married and could not get pregnant. In-vitro fertilization was performed and the embryo was embeddedin the mother of the mother who has lost her uterus, in other words, forthe expectant child, the grandmother got pregnant. She successfully borea child when she was in her fifties. She was the so-called host motherwhich has become possible now. This story is about a person who has
lost her uterus, so I suppose it is understandable. However, if we allow
this to happen where are we going to draw the line? If a woman cannot
bear a child and has her mother bear it on her behalf, what if anotherperson would say, “I am busy with work now, so I cannot take leave ofabsence.” This implies that she also has the right to do the same. Thatmeans that most people in their twenties and thirties are busy, so people
in their fifties who have ample time will be bearing children on theirbehalf. It might actually turn out that way. I was watching a television
program this morning which reported that many young women thesedays could not have children due mainly to financial difficulties or
because they were too busy to raise children. However, the third reason
was because they were afraid of the pain. It is a fact that pain is involved
when having a baby, but today babies can be born without pain accompanying delivery. What is more, today, we can even ask somebody tobear the child for us. But if this becomes a common practice in society,what is going to happen to the mother-child relationship? These areproblems of concern.
Similar situations are occurring in other areas of life. For example, if
medical technology advances people would ask for a way to extend theirlife expectancy. Drugs have appeared to prolong life by halting the aging
57

58

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

process in human cells. Today if we live to around the age of ninety wecan say we have lived a long life, but there may come a time in the
future when we could live to about 130 years old. If we are worried now
about the aging society, what is going to become of our society when
this becomes possible? This is also a concern.
In the case of in-vitro fertilization, during the step of diagnosis forovum implantation, when a single ovum must be chosen from several
fertilized ovum, one will choose either the male or female ovum. Children are born from the available fertilized ovum. If someone says she or
he sincerely desires a male child, they will be able to have a baby boy.
Now, there are several countries in the world where for every hundred
girls, there are a hundred ten or a hundred twenty boys. In in-vitro fertilization we can choose our preferred child and bear it. We can also bear achild with certain characteristics. For example one can choose to bear achild with genes of high intelligence or a child who will not be afflictedby certain diseases. The so-called “designer babies” may become possible because in in-vitro fertilization the male sperm already comes withcertain characteristics and so does the female egg. The price will be
determined by the physical attributes. In Japan such things are not permitted, but while surrogate mothers are not recognized by Japan Societyof Obstetrics and Gynecology, it is not prohibited by the law. Dr. Yahiro
Netsu, director of Suwa Maternity Clinic, actually performed an IVF(in-vitro fertilization) operation and commented on it saying that his
performing the operation he saved a mother by granting her wish of
bearing a child.
I think we have arrived at a very challenging time when we have todecide how far to permit such things in this country or even in humanity
at large. Already in Japan there are opposing view points regarding
brain death and organ transplants. Therefore, differing views and opinions are definitely due to appear in the Diet proceedings. Currently,
there are very few cases of organ transplants in Japan and most people
go overseas to perform them. This presents a problem because richJapanese would have the priority over the locals in the country where
they are preformed. If this is the case, people in Japan will be clamoringfor its legality. A host of problems like these are now beginning to gushout. And with the issue of choosing the gender for birth, prolonging life
expectancy or giving birth without surgery, the fundamental issue ofwhat it means to be a human being will change. This is the reason why
people today debate that it is the beginning of what people call “the endof the human being.” Or, rather, is it the end of the human being as we
originally know it to be. These issues have been the key topics of discus-

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

59

sion since the last decade. Actually, there was an individual who prophesied that such things would occur many decades ago. In 1932, theBritish novelist Aldous Huxley wrote a novel called Brave New World.
The title does convey deep cynicism.
In this novel all babies are made in test tubes and not in the uterus.
While people do have sexual intercourse women do not have to bear
children because they are made outside their bodies. And from the outset there are five different types of classes to which the newborn babies
belong to. This is because there are different ranks of fertilized eggs
from the well-endowed to the simplest genes. All babies are made in afactory in this way but each rank in a different way. And of course thefate of each child is decided at birth. After being born, the individual
does not experience suffering at all. If there is some suffering or anxiety,individuals seek a drug called “soma” which relieves their suffering andmakes them feel uplifted. The author describes such kind of society in
his story.
In this story Huxley is actually questioning whether a human being insuch a society can rightfully be called a human being as we know it. He
was worried for the future of humanity with this type of grave danger. It
was around this period that the Nazis were killing mentally disturbed
people. In Japan, too, mentally disturbed people were not allowed tohave children. The movement of the so called eugenics was gaining
strength. The rationale behind this movement is that those with poor
genes should be removed from society, and the human race should proceed by continuing to develop human beings with desirable genetic
makeup. Such kind of thinking should have ended when the Nazis lost
the war, but in reality there is an increase in people who think that thispossibility is inevitable now. Naturally it is difficult to deny peoples’
desire to bear children with the most desirable characteristics. It iseveryone’s dream. What is increasing is the view that such desires are
becoming justified. This is called “new eugenics.” Originally, eugenics
appeared at the end of the 19th century, several decades before Huxley
wrote his story. It was in its developmental stage with keen public interest, but he was actually quite worried about what would happen if thismovement actually did take root and therefore, wrote it in a science fiction style. Although it is science fiction story, today it seems surprisingly real and that is why I feel we seriously have to reflect on ourselves.
There is an individual named Leon Kass who was the chairman of acommittee President Bush established called The President’s Council on
Bioethics. He was originally a life scientist however later moved to thearea of philosophy. He is one who shares similar worries with Huxley,

60

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

saying that we seriously have to consider the kind of society we are creating today. With President Bush’s way of thinking being close to Christian fundamentalism, it is inevitable that he is sometimes regarded as
advocating the Christian way of thinking. It is surmised that Bush, influenced by his Christian outlook, fears that the recent advances in scientific discoveries in human life will pose a threat to humanity in many
ways. It is the fear of loosing our purpose of existence and the sense thatthe preciousness and dignity of life is weakening. In response, he established a committee to control new research in bioscience. The leader ofthis committee is Leon Kass, who is considered to be a philosopher withan independent sense of judgment.
Kass thinks that the characters that appear in Huxley’s Brave New
World may appear to be healthy and happy, but they are no longer
human beings in the true sense. They do not struggle and do not haveambitions. They do not love and do not feel pain. They do not have to
make painful decisions. They do not even have families nor do they dowhat human beings have traditionally come to do. They do not have any
attributes that display human dignity. There is no sign about them that
we can say they belong to humankind. While they receive educationfrom a so-called ruler, they themselves are classified into five ranks orcastes such as, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and epsilon. These classes
completely discriminate one type of human being from another—as different as the human being and an animal. By deliberately discriminating
people through their genes and classifying them in different ways thereis the notion that they are no longer human beings equal to each other.
Such kind of radical imagination was portrayed in this book as early
as 1932. But I think as members of the human race it is about time weaddress these issues. Fearing such potential developments, Kass proposed some strict measures for restrictions in advanced bioscience
research. This triggered some fierce backlash from American life scientists and kindled part of the cause which resulted in Bush’s weak performance in the 2006 mid-term elections. One possible reason for the
Democrats’ victory was that there was a movement that repelled suchsevere measures restricting bioscience research, asking the question
whether people suffering from various illnesses could be saved by suchproposed restrictions. I think it was a kind of campaign on the Democrats’ side that won them some success.
Leon Kass is a philosopher of Jewish descent but there is also anothernoted scholar named Francis Fukuyama, a Japanese-American, who isalso tackling the issue of bioethics. He was famous for his book which
later became a bestseller entitled The End of History and the Last Man

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

61

(1992). In this book, Fukuyama observes that due to the defeat of communism, humankind could finally attempt to create an ideal society.
However, in his later book, Our Posthuman Future (2002), the “post”
suggests his apprehension or anxiety of human society’s entering a newphase of existence after the end of humankind. He was also a member ofLeon Kass’ bioethics committee. The title of his book—The End of History and the Last Man connotes some kind of “end,” when in reality science continues to progress today creating new history. The question is;will we be able to live life the way we have until now? He is suggestingthat perhaps human society will face a new kind of crisis.
There is currently another world-renowned German philosopher
named Jürgen Habermas, who also talks about a new crisis that humansociety is facing, but with more urgency. His is a debate on preselecting
the characteristics of the baby and he poses the questions of what kindof social system will we live in if human beings suspected of carrying
illness genes such as physical disability or diabetes can legally be prevented from being born. What if society officially allows rejection ofcertain kinds of people from being born? What kind of society will it
be? What will be strange about it? The fundamental principles on whichhuman society was based until now and what supported it will be questioned. It may also be faced with whether it can withstand such newdevelopments that heretofore never existed.
This is not only the kind of typical difficult issue a philosopher asks,
but something so broad and common that it is made into novels andmovies. The case in point is a 2005 Hollywood movie called “TheIsland.” In this movie there is an underground facility that develops copy
human beings for the rich when they fall ill. They can take advantage ofhuman internal organs or ideal physical bodies. When an organ is finallyrequired by these rich people a copy human being is killed in this facility and his organ is delivered to them. When a person is selected for his
body or organ in the facility, he is told that he has been finally selected
to be of service and advancement of the ideal island. In a happy state heis taken, but actually he is killed and his organ is removed. It is anextremely frightening movie that portrays a kind of factory which manufactures internal organs. There is a class system and for the medical purpose of people in the upper class, the people in the lower class have tosacrifice their lives. This is very similar to Huxley’s world described in
his book. And it does strike some similarities to what seems to be happening in society today.
Today there is much discrimination in medical practices. Money ismore often becoming the big determinant for receiving a variety of med-

62

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

ical services. If one does not pay the national health insurance fees, theycannot receive medical service. In the United States, if one does nothave money, they cannot be covered by insurance. I had former students
who were a young couple in the United States. They were apprentices inmovie making and dancing. When I visited them in New York, I foundout that they were not covered by any kind of insurance. When I asked
them what would happen to them if they fell ill, they answered, “we’ll
just sleep it off!” They can not even go to a doctor. Such things are happening in Japan too. In this way medical service is seeing more andmore discrimination. But in the United States it is the norm today.
What made this noticeable has to do with the issue of cloning. Whena lizard severs its tail it grows back in no time. Though this is only thetail, this fact in small primitive species signifies the possibility that theoriginal body can grow back just with a part of the body. Cloning experiments began by applying this principle to more complex living organisms. Cloning is actually grafting. If you lose a part of your body fromone area, the same part will grow back from there. In higher life forms if
you remove the nucleus from an ovum and put the nucleus of anotherperson’s cell that person’s body will start to grow. Mind you, it has to be
the ovum, not the fertilized egg. The ovum exists only in females. It isan amazing entity of power and is the source of life itself. Though ababy can not be born with the sperm alone, it has become possible now
to give birth only with the ovum and not requiring the sperm. Unisexual
reproduction is now possible. It is happening now with sheep. If it ispossible with sheep then it could be possible with humans. In 1996, it
was performed by a Scottish scientist and in 1997 we learned of thenews which had a tremendous impact on the world.
Is it permissible to use such cloning techniques on human beings, isthe question. There are many reasons people give for cloning. When acouple can not have children because the sperm of the husband is not
active enough, if a piece of a healthy cell of the husband was injected
into the wife’s ovum, it will result in a baby being born with the father’s
genes. Identical twins are two human beings with the same genetic
makeup in the same generation. However the same process can happen
with parent and child. But is it morally right to do that? If this is permitted then the male species will be faced with some challenges. It will
become a society in which we would not need males to give birth tochildren. This sounds like a joke but more importantly, if this practice
becomes common, children born in this way will not have two parents inthe normal sense. The meaning of parenthood will also change. Whatkind of problems will this pose? Of course there have been numerous

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

63

cases where children do not know who their parents are, but these are
special circumstances and are not exactly happy ones. But what if it
becomes the norm and we are filled with cases of children not knowing
exactly who their mother and father are?
There has already been a case of an unmarried woman who obtained
the sperm of another person through auction and gave birth to a child.
Such cases will increase more and more. Today most leaders of thenations of the world think that allowing the birth of children throughcloning is an extremely dangerous practice and do not permit it. However the cloning technology can be used for other purposes. One of them isto develop internal organs for transplant. Today the only way to deal
with a defective liver or heart is through cadaveric transplants. A person
has an internal organ transplanted from a deceased person. In Japan,
though, it is hardly done. Rather, one receives an organ from a living
person. The politician Yohei Kono’s son, Taro Kono, gave a part of hisliver to his father and his father survived as a result. This is called“transplanting while alive.” However the problem is that even in the casebetween parent and child, because the genetic makeup is different a
rejection response occurs. Immunity retardant has to be administered.
However taking this makes one susceptible to other illnesses whichmakes organ transplant an extremely difficult method of medical treatment. The recipient of the organ undergoes pain. At the same time, there
is no guarantee of the health for the organ donor himself or herself.
There is the concern that the donor may suffer from side effects ten,twenty or thirty years following the transplant.
However if we use the cloning technology, although we are not entirely certain we could use it, there is a possibility we could produce internal organs. Before that, in the first stage of cloning we develop what wecall the embryo—the small fertilized egg. It is in a stage far before it
develops into a fetus. The ES cell known as the all purpose cell, is
extracted by cracking the embryo. If this is then implanted for instanceinto a pig, it may perhaps be possible to grow a human liver or a humanheart inside it. In the United States in 1998, the first human ES cell was
extracted. If creating human cloned embryos becomes possible, obtaining such cloned embryos from selected people’s cells could enable theextracting of ES cells which contain their genes. The news of this possibility rocked the economic and scientific research fields. This is called
regenerative medicine. We can “regenerate” the weak physical areas ofour human body. If that is possible then most illnesses can be cured. In
particular, organ transplants will become smoother as there will be no
rejection response. We would be able to replace our own organs with

64

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

transplants containing our own genes.
I earlier referred to the movie “The Island,” where human beings andnot animals were used to make organs for transplants, which was nightmarish. Some have the opinion that as long as they are made by animals
it would not be a problem. Therefore, regenerative medicine, or reviving
damaged organs or cells, has the possibility to be developed in this way
too. Today, in IVF it is permitted to obtain ES cells from any excess fertilized egg for reproductive purposes in Japan. However, if we canextract it from the cloning embryo it means we can obtain ES cells containing our own genes. If we can create tissues not containing any rejection response there is the possibility that we can reconstruct parts of ourown body in a place outside our body.
Today, nations and private industry are starting to spend massive
amount of money to enter into this domain. If medical possibilities using
such technology are publicized, people may think that human beings
would be able to fulfill their every desire if it became a reality. There
have appeared many theorists who say that not only would the sick beprovided with ideal medical treatment but we would be able to develop
human beings with more happiness and capabilities. For example, there
are the American life scientists such as Lee M. Silver who wrote:
Remaking Eden (1997) and Gregory Stock who wrote: Redesigning
Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future (2002) who think this way.
Going beyond the techniques of cloning embryos or ES cell technology,
such as genetic medical treatment or to the level of modifying genes,
though we are already seeing the possibility of this being done, we canbegin to engage freely in human remodeling. It is already being donewith animals. If it can be applied to humans, we can be able to remove
genes that are cancerous and replace it with those that are not. We canperhaps take out genes with weak memory and replace it with genes of
top performance memory. It might be possible. Silver claims that if
humanity starts conducting these practices, human beings will be divided into two classes—those with gene alteration and those whom genealteration was not possible. Those whose gene alteration was not possible would be called “natural,” and those whose gene alteration was possible would be called “gene rich.” He says that humanity may be divided
into these two categories. He doesn’t argue that it is bad or that weshould stop this. In fact he argues that we should do it because we cannot stop ourselves from doing it anyway.
The current issues such as cloning embryos or ES cells are controversial because they involve manipulation at the stage of the origin of life.
However, they claim that they are attempting to cure diseases. If a per-

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

65

son’s spinal chord is injured in an accident and he or she has to use awheelchair for life, this medical technology could save that person fromhaving to do so. Also, a person suffering from Parkinson’s disease could
be cured faster. Alzheimer’s disease could also be cured as well as childdiabetes. The hopes are high. However, with these achievements wecould also face some major problems.
We say we make cloned embryos but in reality we are making humanbeings. It’s not giving birth to children but it is actually applying theprocess of the origin of the child to create something. We use theprocess to make something, and then we break it; actually, kill it. In theearliest stage of creating something, when it is not even the size of agrain of rice, we have created something using the resources of humanlife itself. This is actually using the human embryo. For example, there
is somebody who is suffering from pain due to a terrible car accident oran illness, and we feel compelled to do something for him or her. We get
an ovum and a sperm from living human beings, and by using thecloning technique on the ovum we can make a cloned embryo, since
there are excess fertilized eggs from IVF that are kept frozen and which
are going to be discarded anyway (these are, by the way, sanctioned to
be used for various purposes around the world). Then the question
remains, if we make new fertilized eggs or new cloned embryos, why
can we not use them? This is what is being debated around the world
today.

2. The Oversight of Japan’s Discussion on Human Embryos
Even in Japan the aforementioned debate continued for a period from1997 to 2004 in Council for Science and Technology Policy. I was also apart of this debate. In that course of time, the Law Concerning Regulation Relating to Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques was established. (Established in 2000 and effective the followingyear). However this is a problematic law. Under this law making cloned
embryos was not permitted. Though the wordings of the law werevague, the only aspect that was clear was that it did not include a “yes.”
Nonetheless, life scientists in the regenerative medicine field, capitalists
who tried to push it, and the government who wanted to be shoulder toshoulder in rank with the other advanced nations in its research,
expressed their desire to launch research in this technology. However,whether it was alright to tamper with the “origin of life” without keeping in mind the sacrifices, misuse or the dangers that come associatedwith it, but processing it simply for winning the current race or for the

66

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

sake of saving desperate people is an issue of on-going debate.
The countries that are currently strongly promoting research on thisfield are Israel, Singapore, Korea, China, and the United Kingdom
though we do not know how far ahead China is. However, no one has
actually succeeded in making ES cells from human cloned embryos yet.
In February, 2004, a researcher from Seoul University, Korea, claimed
that he had succeeded. Though it is banned in many countries restrictions for such research are fairly loose in Korea. Surrogate mothers arealso quite freely practiced there. That is probably why people go to
China, Korea or the United States to perform it. One reason why restrictions are loose in Korea is because Korean women insist on having malechildren and to respond to their needs the IVF practice thrives.
With the news of Korea’s success in producing ES cells of cloned
embryo, Japan became extremely anxious. They felt that because Korea
had already succeeded, Japan should catch up. It is not simply about
who wins the race, but also entails who can register the patent first.
Huge amount of economic revenue can be expected with a new technology or breakthrough. And with this, more money can be invested forfurther scientific research which can lead to further progress. Therefore
this can directly and deeply influence the present and future fortunes andnational interest of the entire nation. These developments become thegrounds for the United States arguing why they could not achieve suchtechnological breakthroughs if Korea could do it.
In reality, though, it was found that this news was a fabrication. In
2005 it was reported in the news that a breakthrough was achieved but it
was also a lie. When I spoke to a Korean about it, the person wasappalled.
However, there was another issue at hand which did not seem soimportant at that time. In the first place, to achieve success in this kindof experiment requires a lot of ova. How many ova are necessary at firstto finally make an ES cell from a cloned embryo? Dr. Hwang Woo-suk
collected more than two thousand ova. Those who have conducted IVF
know that using ovulatory drugs to extract ovum is a heavy burden on
the woman. There are people who become ill and some who even die. It
was reported that there were volunteers but it is highly possible thatwomen who were Dr. Hwang’s research staff succumbed to heavy pressure from him. This is a serious problem too. The issue of how suitableor appropriate research and development on cloned embryos is a heateddebate in Japan. For example, if it is allowed once, then extracting ovum
from females will become a widespread practice. And it is highly likelythat money would be involved. In other words the business of selling

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

67

ovum for research may arise and its moral implications are likely toarise with it.
This issue is being debated in the United Nations as well. Not only
would cloning human beings be impermissible but it would also call fora banning of the use of cloned embryos by the United States, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, Hungary and Kuwait. In contrast to this,countries that think that this practice should not be banned but should beleft up to each country to decide for itself are England, France, Spain,
Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, and China. In general, theCatholic countries are against it, the Islamic countries, though divided,
are even more against it, and Asia, specifically East Asia, is for it.
In Japan there is a body within the government to discuss theseissues, called the Council for Science and Technology Policy within the
Cabinet Office. The Chairperson of this group is the Prime Minster. Of
course it was Mr. Koizumi before, but now it is headed by Mr. Abe.
Within this organization several investigation groups are formed and discussions are held. Here, I was also a part of Expert Panel on Bioethics
Special Research Commission and as a member I participated in someof the discussions.
In July 2004 a report in favor of it was submitted. Eventually the
council agreed affirmatively on research, but the way in which theycame to such a decision was rather haphazard. I complained about it but
somehow it was railroaded because I learned that there were a handfulof committee members who curiously only showed up on the ballotingday.
The Mainichi Shimbun newspaper was the most vociferous in objecting. It questioned whether proper guidelines were in place that ensured
the proper handling of the human embryos that will naturally grow up to
be human beings as below:
The final report was submitted after three years of discussion and debate
by Expert Panel on Bioethics Special Research Commission of theCouncil for Science and Technology Policy. These are heavyweight
issues dealing with people’s lives and human rights. Compared to its
weight of importance, the contents of the report were fairly casual. The
final report approved the objectives of the research and use of humancloned embryos. The use of these embryos may result in the success ofregenerative medicine with no rejection. The purpose for its approval
was to be able to respond to the expectations and needs of the patient.
While on one hand we can understand the research’s expectations, we
also have some reservations about the dangers and challenges that

68

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

human cloned embryonic research using cloning technology will bring
forth. That is why it has been banned until now under the guidelines of
the Law Concerning Regulation Relating to Human Cloning Techniquesand Other Similar Techniques. Despite this, the scientific and theoretical grounds for lifting the ban are not sufficiently and clearly stated in
the report. The final report also approved the making of human fertilized embryos (human embryos) for the purpose of supplementary reproduction medical research. However, here too, the grounds for approval
are insufficient. (From the Editorial, dated 15th July, 2004).

The issue of whether it was right to make fertilized eggs, or what is theorigin of a child for the purpose of research was also brought up. What
was banned up to now was approved. I think the way the final decision
was reached was also problematical. The concern of upper managementof the Expert Panel, the Council for Science and Technology Policy, isthe development of science. It is actually a council to further scientificprogress. In any case there is a kind of policy statement of broad principles for scientific progress and we are asked to debate within that platform. Under the assumption that we are expected to come up with ways
to advance ahead we were asked to debate within the given challenge of
becoming a competitive science and technology leader in the world.
Then finally the railroading of the decision occurred. Some knew
such practices would occur and some did not. We seriously debatedthese issues for three years and we represented the minority opinions
who gave careful thought to the subjects discussed. We found ourselvesin a difficult situation to agree with the final outcome. We offered ourminority opinions and expressed the view that there wasn’t sufficientargument to approve it, but we were overpowered predominantly by the
medical experts.
Mostly scientists and researchers are members of the Council for Science and Technology Policy. Then, some non-medical members ofExpert Panel on Bioethics Special Research Commission are selected ofwhich I am one of them but the other members were mostly medical
professionals. However, I wonder if it is right to leave discussion in matters that concern human society in general to a team of medical professionals. But they would argue that those who do not have medical
knowledge and experience are not capable of debating these issues, andthat those who have no knowledge of the life sciences and the origin ofhuman life cannot debate these issues. I did not think so. I think thateventually these issues would have an effect on human society in general, so I think concerned individuals in the area of philosophy, ethics,

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

69

religion, or social system should also participate in these types of discussions.
Saisho Hazuki, a nonfiction writer, has covered these debates from its
inception and has come up with a brilliant report. Let me introduce
something that appeared in the April, 2004 issue of the Bungei Shunju
magazine. Of late, there is the fact that when the government conducts apublic hearing on an issue such as the Fundamental Law of Education,
the questions that are raised are intentionally staged and planned inadvance. The government would select a group beforehand and call theconcerned individuals and have them field questions in the session. Ms.
Saisho made an observation of thirty some discussion meetings of thecommittee to observe who attended, how often and how many times sheor he made statements. It was plain to see who passionately led thedebates and discussion. Nevertheless, each person cast their vote at areferendum. And even those who hardly attended any meetings continued to be committee members and would only show up when it wastime to vote. These facts became plain to see and could not be hidden
any longer. True and proper debate was seriously lacking in the halls ofgovernment.
I was actually there to witness it all and participated in these debates
to criticize the way it was conducted. That is probably why my views
sound critical. I have no doubt that some of those experts in the field of
medicine found me to be a nuisance. But if these discussions are notthoroughly held then the researchers will be lacking in the confidence
that their work is for the good of society. In any case, the way it is being
held is indeed questionable.

3. The Reality of the Crisis and Cultural Differences
Firstly, we must face the fact that humanity is confronted by the crisis of
the possibility of humanity being reformed. I stressed earlier that there
was a growing concern about this. What measures should then be taken?
In my approach to tackling this issue, I came across the fact that difference in culture posed a new set of ways to address the issue. When I
referred to the United Nation’s debate on this issue, I found that
Catholic nations were against it and that the Protestants were more infavor of it. In the orient where Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism andTaoism are prevalent, full-fledged discussions are not relatively held. As
a result, with the Catholics being opposed to it, time-consuming discussions are inevitably held. In the meantime, there are apprehensions thatcountries such as Israel, where Judaism prevails, Singapore, China,

70

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

Korea and Japan will take the lead in the research of this field.
Francis Fukuyama is well versed in the history of western thought
and since he has not inherited any Asian culture, though he is Japanesedescended, he says to the following effect that there are many Asian
countries that do not have a religion with a system of faith in a transcendental being.
“The dominant ethical system in China, Confucianism, lacks any concept of God; folk religions like Taoism and Shinto are animistic andinvest both animals and inanimate objects with spiritual qualities; andBuddhism conflates human and natural creation into a single seamlesscosmos. Asian traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto tend
not to make as sharp an ethical distinction between mankind and the restof natural creation as does Christianity. That these traditions perceive acontinuity between human and nonhuman nature has allowed them tobe, as Frans de Waal points out, more sympathetic to nonhuman animals. But it also implies a somewhat lower degree of regard for the
sanctity of human life.” (from Our Posthuman Future by Francis
Fukuyama)

Christianity teaches that amongst God’s creations, only human beings
were created in his likeness and therefore possess a distinctive soul.
According to Christians everything including objects and living things
were created by God and that God is absolute. Consequently, they are
regarded totally different from other living things and are placed on a
special and higher level. Unlike this Christian concept, he observes,
Buddhism teaches reincarnation, which enables a human being to beborn as an animal in the next life. Therefore, in Buddhism there is no
absolute distinction between animals and human beings. Moreover,
Buddhism teaches that Mountains, Rivers, Grasses, Trees, Countries, allattain Buddhahood. One of the basic principles of Buddhism is that “allsentient begings alike posess the Buddha nature.” That is why thehuman being is not considered a special entity. “Buddhism conflates
human and natural creation into a single seamless cosmos.” While there
are different schools of thought in Buddhism, the common belief inJapan is that all phenomena are interrelated and that the Buddha nature
permeates through it all. That the life of the Buddha exists throughout
the universe is the concept which is strongly believed in Japan. “Asian
traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto tend not to make as
sharp an ethical distinction between mankind and the rest of natural creation as does Christianity.” The question then arises—why cannot one

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE71

do to a human being that can be done to an animal?
As Frans de Waal, the renowned primatologist observes, the oriental
tradition sees the human being and other living beings as a sequence.
This is very true of Buddhism. Needless to say, only because one has
been born as a human being, they can follow the teachings of the Buddha. Herein lies the Buddhist view of the profundity of being born as ahuman being. However human beings in this lifetime may have been
animals in their past existences. On the other hand, we also have thepossibility to be born as animals in our next lifetime. When viewed fromthe Buddhist concept of jikkai gogu (mutual possessions of the ten
worlds) or ichinen sanzen (three thousand realms in a single moment oflife), the human being possesses animalistic aspects as well as elementsof objects. In the same context, human beings simultaneously possess alife state of hell as well as the life state of Buddha. The view that humanbeings are not considerate any more special than other living beings isprobably why Buddhists demand profound compassion towards living
beings other than humans.
According to Fukuyama, however, such theories belittle the importance and sanctity of human life. The Catholic Church stresses that fromthe moment of conception human life becomes sacred as it was createdin the likeness of God. Therefore, to destroy this life is unthinkable. The
Catholics Church, of course, teaches that abortion is equivalent to murder. Compared to this, he says the degree to which respect is given tohuman life in oriental philosophy is meager. In fact, abortions are permitted and more so when the sex was female in most regions of Asia.
Consequently, he concludes that cultures other than those of the west are
dangerous.
How can we find a solution to this? Let me discuss Leon Kass’ writings here. While Kass does not particularly criticize oriental culture, hisargument is whether modern biology has the answers to these issues
which he does not think so. He stresses that modern biology does not, or
rather cannot, handle the issue of life in the spiritual context as it deems
to be. He believes that human life must be viewed from a religious orphilosophical perspective which sheds light on the human being’s raisond’etre. His suggestion is that we, i.e. the West, should go back to philosophy of ancient Greece or Biblical traditions. In addition, he emphasizes“What is urgently needed is a richer, more natural biology and anthropology, one that does full justice to the meaning of our peculiarly humanunion of soul and body.” (Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The
Challenge for Bioethics by Leon Kass, 2002) That the human being ispeculiarly human union of soul and body already connotes western

72

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

thought which he says is explained by the tradition of western philosophy and the Bible. When Leon Kass, a Jew, mentions the Bible, he does
so on the assumption that Judaism and Christianity are interrelated.
“Soul and body in which low neediness and divine-seeking aspiration
are concretely joined.” In other words, if importance was to be placed on
the soul, then the same should be done for the physical body. If serious
thought to western philosophies and religious regarding this issue is not
being given, they cannot expect to come up with answers to the problemof bioethics, is their argument.
I feel that this is quite true. But to say that only western philosophiesand religions have answers to this issue is questionable. “In our searchfor such an account, we can get help from premodern sources, bothphilosophical and biblical. We can learn, for example, from Aristotle...”I think it is fine to go along with western thoughts but we can also referto eastern thoughts and even to thoughts from other parts of the world.
This is the reason for my saying that it is not enough to have experts
and specialists in this field to determine the policy of bioethics, but that
we should also include the aspect of culture in finding solutions to thisissue. How do people live? What are their values? What is important inlife? What are things that should not be done? What kind of a life is ameaningful one? If we do not include such questions in our search forthe answer, we cannot expect to decide how far and how much medical
technology can be used. In a sense, the future of humanity depends onthe direction bioethics will go. This is why I insist that values on every
aspect of life must be addressed. If this is true, it is only natural that thenext stage we embark on will be the realm of religion—and that too, thevariety of religions that are practiced by humankind.
Nonetheless, when we see how discussions on this issue are proceeding around the world, the influence of western thoughts is overwhelming. Of course, it is a fact that the west has been more involved in these
discussions for a long time. People in the field of religion and even scientists have been having on-going discussions on this issue within theframework of western thought. Amongst the discussions they have been
engaged in is abortion—one of the most important issues at hand. In thewestern nations, whether to legalize abortions or not has been a heateddiscussion and one which would determine a nation’s policy. Every time
there is a national election in process, the issue of abortion would
always be closed up—making citizens give a serious thought about it
when deciding who to vote for.
I feel that the issue of abortion is closely related to a woman’s way ofliving. One stance is the “pro-choice” that claims the right to choose toBIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

73

have abortion or not. Whether a woman gives birth or not is her choice.
There is the unwanted pregnancy. In such cases, women tend to thinkthat it is her responsibility. However, in reality it is not as simple as that.
In many cases the responsibility lies in the man. In some cases it may
have been a mistake on the part of both, the man and the woman.
Whichever the case it may be, it is always the woman who undergoes
the suffering. This is why there is the group of people—the “pro-choice”
camp—who believe that the woman has the right to choose. This is theargument of those who uphold human rights.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that whether it is an
issue of human rights or not, no one has the right to take away life.
From the moment the sperm and egg merge, a new life is formed andaborting that life is almost equal to murder. Viewed through ultrasound,although the embryo is still tiny, one can see clearly that it has the shapeof a human being. Those who are against abortion argue that taking
away the life should not be allowed. This is the policy of the “pro-life”
camp. Most Republicans are “pro-life” while the Democrats are “prochoice.” In western Christian nations such as the United States, France,
United Kingdom and Germany, the confrontation between the “pro-life”
camp and the “pro-choice” camp is increasing in intensity. In sharp contrast to that, we do not see such heated confrontation in the Asian
countries. In other words, there are very few Asians who maintain the“pro-life” stance. In Asia, where the thought that human life holds absolute importance over other forms of life is not as common and people
are generally not against abortion, per se. Therefore, people like
Fukuyama would conclude that if we go along with the Asian way of
thinking, it would become a disaster. What I wish to point out here isthat we should take into account cultural differences involved in theapproach to this issue.
At any rate, what we must give serious thought to is whether thewestern idea of the sanctity of human life is the only approach to finding
answers to this issue. Should we not try to find a solution for all peoplesof the world to be convinced of? This is not an easy task. That is why
we are continued to be faced with the challenge of how we can control
science and technology which continues to develop to meet the desiresof the human being. Parallel to this, is the challenge of establishing thecriteria for how much to control. An agreement on this cannot be readilyreached due to the difference in culture and religions of the world. I
truly feel the crux of the problem lies here.

74

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

4. The Value of Human Life and Diversity of Culture
How are we to respond to misgivings on Asian thought that arise fromwestern culture and values? People say of Asians that they are overlooking the most important aspect of the respect for human life and that was
the reason why abortions were rampant. They would also bring up topics such as the Japanese killing new born babies during the Edo Period.
This is not peculiar to Japan but has also occurred in other parts of Asia.
Although this is the argument of the West, I would like to point out that
there were incidents that suggest such practices also occurred in the premodern times of the west. When Francisco Xavier came to Japan topropagate Catholicism, he reported that there were many cases of newborn baby killing and abortions in Japan. The Catholics tried to savethese children by allowing people to leave their babies in their churches.
If this is the case, why, then, is Japan so permissible about abortion?
Of course there are those who are against abortion, but there is not muchcommotion about this in Japan much less does it develop into a politicalissue. Even if it does, it does not make much of an impact. How can wethen respond to Francis Fukuyama’s criticism that in countries that permit abortion, the respect for human life is not upheld. The western concept is that human beings are superior to animals and therefore deserve
to have the highest of respects. They have been created in the likeness of
God and are the only creatures who can reason. And those who behave
irrationally have lost their qualification, to a small extent, to be called ahuman being. Although they do not say it in so many words, their arguments imply it. To back their arguments for the right to have an abortion, the “pro-choice” camp in the west argues that human life in its
early stages where the capacity to reason has not yet been bestowed
does not make that life qualified to be called a human being. Such arguments are common in the United States and Europe.
How can we in Japan respond to such arguments? Such are the questions that are hurled to us. Scholars of humanities and social scienceshould be able to respond to such questions. I would also like to see religious organizations tackling this issue, and so should the ordinary citizens. But for some reason, discussions on these issues do not get heatedhere in Japan.
When dealing with an issue like this, it is not enough to simply theorize or present an array of logical explanations. I just mentioned about
the importance of religious organizations tackling this issue, but I wonder if the same conclusion would be reached by followers of the samereligion. Even if they practice the same religion, a person whose family

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

75

member, for instance, suffered from Parkinson’s disease might look forward to further research of medical science to provide a cure to the disease. For another instance, a person who suffered from uterine cancer
and could not have children may agree to a mother giving birth onbehalf of her daughter. Each person has their own unique experiences
and consequently their way of thinking and values differ. That is why it
is not necessary that one religion has to provide one answer. It is not akind of issue where one sits at the desk and reads books after books toreach a conclusion. What I wish to say is that if we do not include reallife experiences of suffering, how could we expect to reach a meaningfulconclusion.
I am from the baby boomers generation—a generation that is notmuch liked by the younger generations. I was born in 1948, when many
baby boomers were born. When I was in elementary school, there were
14 classes in the sixth grade. One class consisted of 60 children. Today,at the same elementary school, the sixth grade would have just about
two small classes. During World War II, the government urged people tohave as many babies as possible and they did. Many young people diedduring the war and following that, there was peace. And then once
again, many children were born. People wondered if problems would
occur due to the population increase. The Eugenic Protection Law (thecurrent version of the Mother’s Body Protection Law) was enacted andabortions became legal. There were “Eugenic Protection Law” designated gynecologists, where women could have abortions without being
closely questioned. This is rather early in the world when mostadvanced nations of the world still prohibited abortions. We must givethought to why these advanced nations prohibited abortions in the firstplace. Is it only because people strongly felt that life was important at all
costs? In the past, people never had to worry about having many children as neighbors and relatives were always there to help. Is that really
why woman did not have abortions? I think the answer to this lies someplace else. Advanced nations were desperate to increase their population. They wanted more children to be born so the military could be
strengthened, production would increase and the nation would be more
powerful. That is why they encouraged more children to be born. In the
opening of the Old Testament there are wordings to the effect of “Be
fruitful and increase in number.” I am sure this had to do with therespect for life, but at the same time there is no denying that they wanted
a population increase to strengthen the force of Judaism and to increase
the Christian population.
Today, we have become extremely conscious of the population

76

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

increase. However, is this really a problem of the current times? Fromancient days people were concerned about the possibility of survival if
too many people lived in the same area and therefore, based on their
wisdom as a solution to this problem, abortion was permitted. In contrast to that, in modern times, abortion was strictly prohibited. What
happened then to the increased population? People were roped into
working in industries; some went abroad and with the increased population consumer power increased. The period in history when the west
flourished was the period when they colonized countries. There were
British Empire strongholds around the world and the British spread all
over. In Ireland too, which is a small country, the number of people whowent abroad far outnumbers its current population. In addition, many
Irish who suffered under British rule migrated to other countries.
In the same context, Japan too conquered Korea and colonized it.
Manchuria, too, was Japan’s subject country. When we were young wewere taught that since Japan was a small country with no natural
resources, the only way it could survive was to strengthen its industries
and trading. However during the pre-war days, the Japanese felt that thiswas not enough and decided to conquer countries that were not yet colonized by the West who had already controlled the resource-rich nations.
The Japanese thus went to regions in the Pacific zone and to Asia andalso sent migrants to the North or South America.
This is how religion supported the modernization of the nation bypromoting population growth. The growth of population would lead tothe expansion of the power of religion and at the same time support theinterest of the nation. The nation rejoices and so does the religion.
Therefore, banning abortion was not necessarily all about adhering to
the ideal of upholding the sanctity of life. Behind it was the increasingof power and expansion. I must say this is quite appalling. That religion
teaches the preciousness of life is only natural. But keeping in mind thehistoric facts, it is true that while stressing the importance of life, religions have been supporting war and the nation’s interest to expand
through colonization.
The population in Asia is huge. When returning from the West particularly, one truly feels claustrophobic because of the number of people inAsia. First of all, our houses are smaller and people live in cramped
space. When I was young I always used to wonder how uncomfortable itmust be for a family with three children to live in a two-bedroom house.
In such situations, having abortions, therefore, was inevitable. Perhaps
the same was with those who lived out in the countryside in earlier periods. It would difficult for the parents to leave behind some land for theBIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

77

second son. Naturally there would be no land left for the third son. On
top of that, if the third son could not be adopted into a family whoseparents had no sons, then he might not even get married at all. Such was
the concern of people with many children. Abortion was one solution tothis. The Japanese word mabiki, which was used as a metaphor for
infanticide, literally means thinning out sprouts of crops to increase its
production or branches being cut off or trimmed so the tree would be
able to grow tall. This word was used as an analogy to decrease thenumber of children for the survival of the family. Of course, this is not
acceptable today. However, in order to survive, they had to control theincrease in family members. It was necessary for survival in those days
and therefore was not considered an act of disrespecting human life.
In fact it was regarded as valuing life. Today, with the increase in population becoming a serious issue, calling out for a decrease is not about
disrespecting human life. Rather, for humanity to survive, the idea of
having more children as possible must be reconsidered. Regulating population is not only being implemented today but was also done in thepast. If this was the background to having abortions, it cannot simply be
regarded as making slight of human life.
I would like to touch upon what Kenji Miyazawa had to say to give us
more insight into this issue. Kenji Miyazawa was a noted writer of children’s literature and was a member of “Kokuchu Kai,” a Nichiren Buddhist organization. The Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s thoughts form the
backbone of his works in which he called attention to the tendency ofhuman nature to bully or intimidate the weak and become easily arrogant. Through his literary works he offered suggestions to a way out ofsuch behavior. Miyazawa was a vegetarian and a virgin. It was his wayof controlling his desires. His father was a devout believer of the Jodo
Shinshu sect of Buddhism. Jodo Shinshu teaches that human beings are
weak and incapable of following precepts. Miyazawa, however, becamea vegetarian and respected the life of animals. The reason why I brought
up Miyazawa here was because I thought it might support my view onbioethics vis-à-vis that of the West. For instance, in one of Miyazawa’s
stories, “The Bears of Mt. Nametoko,” there is a character Kojuro who
is a hunter and makes a living out of hunting bears. The only family helives with is his aging mother. Although he hunts bears, he is not happy
about killing them. Because he empathizes with the bear being killed hefeels bad about killing it. Sometimes he feels he can hear what the bearis saying. One day Kojuro says to the bear, “Don’t think I killed you outof hatred, Bear. I have to make a living, just as you have to be shot.... It’s
fate that made you a bear, and it’s fate that makes me do this work.”

78

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

(trans. by John Bester) Even if the bear was told this, of course it would
not want to be killed. At any rate, the story portrays the feelings thehunter had for the bear. Sometimes, Kojuro can hear what the bear issaying. This implies that although human beings are different from animals, there are times they can relate to each other. In their interaction,
Kojuro can feel light emanating from the bear. And the bear, too, understands Kojuro’s feelings and makes a promise with Kojuro. One day,knowing that he was surely going to be shot, the bear appears raising its
hands and says, “Won’t you wait two more years? For myself, I don’tcare whether I die or not, but there are still things I must do, so wait justtwo years. When two years are up, you’ll find me dead in front of yourhouse without fail. You can have my fur and my insides too.” Exactly
two years later, the bear was found dead in front of Kojuro’s house. He
had kept his promise.
While Kojuro, a human being, had the advantage over animals, inhuman society he was in an underprivileged position because in Japan
those days, killing any form of life was considered sinful and those who
made a living out of hunting were discriminated and looked down upon.
Kojuro suffered about this.
In the last scene, Kojuro tries to shoot a bear but misses and is
attacked and killed by it. Kojuro dies and experiences life after death.
He recalls the moment the bear plunged over him. He felt as though hishead was hit hard and lost consciousness. He then could hear from a distance the bear saying, “Ah, Kojuro, I didn’t mean to kill you.” Kojuro
realizes he is dead and sees blue light twinkling all over like stars.
Kojuro thinks to himself, “Those are the signs that I’m dead ... the fires
you see when you die. Forgive me, bears,” regretting killing bears all his
life.
Three days later, the bear placed Kojuro’s body in the mountains, surrounded it and quietly mourned over it. The bear performed the mourning rites just as humans would do. The bear wanted to engrave in his life
the fact that both had the sanctity of life. There is no disparity in the
sanctity of life between animals and humans. As a human being,
Kojuro’s life was revered. And the sanctity of his life was no different
from that of the bear’s. When the bear died, Kojuro realized the sanctityof the bear’s life, which was no different from that of human beings.
What I am trying to say here is that how can we claim that our lives aresuperior to those of animals. This is a story about killing bears but we,human beings, abort embryos. The American way of thinking is thatembryos are not yet human beings and therefore can not rationalize
thus, it is alright to kill them. This is the Westerner’s way of thinking.

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE79

I think Buddhist or the Japanese way of thinking may be, “yes, it is asin to kill life but human beings cannot avoid committing sins. We
should not kill any form of life but at times we have no choice in orderto survive.” This was the relation between Kojuro and the bear. It is truethat human beings are different from bears. We recognize differences forwhat they are but in no way is it superior or inferior or an important andunimportant relationship. The human being is not absolutely superior to
the bear. Human beings live by killing bears. We eat their meat to survive. Some may argue saying that this is lowering the value and qualityof the life of animals. However, what I wish to say by citing this story isthat killing animals never mean that there is nothing to respect in the lifeof animals.
Buddhism teaches that all forms of life should be respected. However,since we are human beings we tend to respect human life in particular.
There would be no problems if human beings could always do the rightthing but unfortunately this is not the case. Buddhism sheds light on
how we should live despite this dilemma. This is what underlines
Miyazawa’s thoughts and may serve as a clue to the issue of bioethics.
Making clear distinctions between good and bad and urging humans to
do only good is the western way of thinking. Is it alright to kill theembryo or not? Is it yes or no? I feel that the answer “yes” has its rationale and “no” has its rationale as well.
There is another more complicated issue which we cannot provide
simple answers to. By cherishing one person’s life, another person’s life
may be at risk or a life in the future may be in danger. We need to deal
with this issue while keeping this in mind. We may want to adopt aclear-cut attitude but there are feelings of sorrow or guilt that cannot be
explained simply from a rational point of view. My intent in bringing up
this story was not to offer any clear answers to the issue. I wanted topose the question as to who or what is supporting human life. I also
wanted to point out that the disadvantaged could relate to each other,make promises to each other and even offer themselves to each other. It
is like the bodhisattva way as taught in Mahayana Buddhism. If wethink about bioethics from that point of view, I wonder what kind of difference it would make. Could we not derive some hints from this story?
Bioethics is a serious issue and we may not be able to easily come up
with answers. In fact, the purpose of my lecture today is not about providing answers. Human society is at a standstill now as it is unable toreach conclusions to the serious issue of bioethics. We cannot simply
conclude by saying that it is about the difference in culture. Whether it
is Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism or even Japanese folkloric religions,

80

BIOETHICS ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

the Japanese have inherited a variety of cultural traditions. There aremany works of art that have come from the wisdom and culture of these
traditions.
Based on our traditions, I think it is important that the Japanese offer
the world suggestions to the issue of bioethics. Moreover, it is an issue
that we should not leave up to specialists but rather something that weordinary people should think about and take part in discussions on it.
The purpose of my lecture is to urge all to take more interest in thisissue and to engage in discussions about it.