by Diana-Maria Stocker //
The Nazi era showed how quickly normative principles can be undermined by ideology and this is evident once again today. The fact that we have not come to terms with the Shoah, the Holocaust, despite thick textbooks, monuments and days of remembrance, but merely use it as a cudgel against political critics and dissidents, reveals the unworthy theater with unreflective actors in the Bundestag. And especially the person who provides the impetus for this: the lawyer Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf and her understanding of human dignity.
"The assumption that human dignity applies wherever human life exists is a biologistic-naturalistic fallacy. There are good reasons why the guarantee of human dignity only applies from birth."
This statement is explosive and catastrophic for society as a whole. Because what happens when politicians and judges appointed by them decide on humane and inhumane Deciding lives, that is what this country, and the whole world, experienced in the most devastating way around 90 years ago.
Brosius-Gersdorf sees unrestricted human dignity as "biologistic-naturalistic fallacy" and thus shakes hands with Nazi ideology.
This was biologistic through and through, as it reduced people to biological characteristics such as "race" and physical or mental attributes and drew normative conclusions from this. The statement that human dignity does not automatically follow from biological life can also be understood as a criticism of such biologistic approaches. However, even if human dignity is defined normatively, for example through social recognition, regardless of biological characteristics, the restriction to birth is problematic, as it creates a new form of exclusion that is reminiscent of the Nazi era, in which certain groups were arbitrarily deprived of their rights.
For the lawyer Brosius-Gersdorf, there are also "(...) good reasons for this (...)". It is not known what these are. And who decides what is good or bad?
The Nazis defined it like this: The life of the individual only has value if it is useful to the national community. [1] And what followed from this should be well known, even to the lawyer who wants to become a constitutional judge: forced sterilization, euthanasia programmes that ended in industrial murder. Dignity was tied to criteria such as ability, hereditary biological purity or other "social values" defined at the time.
Humans have been dehumanized.
The fact that Brosius-Gersdorf was even put up for election as a constitutional judge by the governing parties reveals their logic and thought patterns. Which, if unchallenged and uncriticized, run the risk of ending up in an inhumane system that bases moral decisions on technocratic legitimacy.
But human dignity is unconditional and non-negotiable - from the first moment of human life. Anyone who softens this is treading on ethically dangerous ground.
Sources:
[1] Cf. Ernst Klee, "Euthanasia" in the Nazi state: the "extermination of life unworthy of life"Further reading: Alexander Mitscherlich, Fred Mielke: Medicine without humanity. Documents of the Nuremberg Doctors' TrialS. Fischer Verlag, 1989.
Wikipedia / Positions: „Zur Corona-vaccination obligation, she took the position that this was Basic Law and held that there was a constitutional obligation to introduce a Compulsory vaccination für denkbar.“
English 
German 
Spanish
10 Responses
Hätten Politik und Gesellschaft die unsägliche Corona-Zeit aufgearbeitet, wäre uns dieses für das Bundesverfassungsgericht unwürdige Gezerre und wohl auch diese Personalie als Anwärterin auf einen Richterstuhl beim BVerG wohl erspart geblieben. Mit seine unkritischen Rechtssprechung während Corona hat sich das BVerG letztlich selbst beschädigt. Doch was ist von einem Gericht zu erwarten, das ein Abbild der zunehmenden ideologisierten Politik von SPD und Grünen sowie seit Angela Merkel bzw. Ursula von der Leyen auch der CDU ist?
It seems to me that all the commentators here have contented themselves with picking up on the abbreviated and incomplete statements. This may be due to the fact that the chain of argumentation is detailed and long, which is due to the complexity of the problem. For example, Ms. Brosius-Gersdorf did not limit herself to questioning the application of Article 1 to unborn life, but also tried to show ways in which it can be protected. In doing so, she is in line with countless constitutional lawyers. It is cheap to focus on just one sentence here, in line with the smear campaign.
It's not just about the one sentence. In the hearing in the Legal Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag, Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf said on 10.2.2025:
„Ob dem Embryo und später Fetus der Schutz der Menschenwürdegarantie des Grundgesetzes zukommt, das ist in der Tat in der Verfassungsrechtswissenschaft sehr umstritten. Meines Erachtens gibt es gute Gründe dafür, dass die Menschenwürdegarantie erst ab Geburt gilt.“
In her essay "Guaranteeing human dignity and the right to life for the unborn. The need for reform in abortion", she writes in 2024:
„Art. 1 I GG ist nach der breit konsentierten, wenngleich in ihrer Leistungsfähigkeit begrenzten Objektformel nur verletzt, wenn der Einzelne zum Objekt staatlichen Handelns herabgewürdigt wird. Ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen die Objektformel zur Anwendung kommt, wenn Übergriffe auf Grundrechte nicht vom Staat, sondern von einem Grundrechtsträger (hier: der Schwangeren) ausgehen, ist nicht geklärt und erscheint fragwürdig. In jedem Fall dürfte eine Objektivierung nur in Betracht kommen, wenn die Subjektqualität des Einzelnen infrage gestellt wird, etwa durch Kategorisierungen als »lebenswert« oder »lebensunwert«. Die Tötung eines Menschen ohne herabwürdigende Begleitumstände, die ihm seine Subjektqualität absprechen, verletzt Art. 1 I GG nicht.“
Ich wiederhole den letzten Satz: „Die Tötung eines Menschen ohne herabwürdigende Begleitumstände, die ihm seine Subjektqualität absprechen, verletzt Art. 1 I GG nicht.“
Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf seems to take the view that the impairment of an individual's subject quality can only be caused by state action. She excludes state action from state omission in the form of neglect of the state's duty to protect. According to Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, if the state does not protect a holder of fundamental rights from encroachments on the fundamental rights of other holders of fundamental rights, this would not lead to a violation of human dignity by the state. This is arbitrariness à la Pippi Longstocking and legally indefensible.
Equally indefensible are her positions on compulsory vaccination, where she places collectivism above human dignity, and on the AfD ban, where she regrets not having a solution to eliminate voters after a successful ban.
Der Buchstabe „C“ im Parteinamen ist verlogen und widerlich. Wer dem zustimmt, dass ein Kind 2 Minuten vor seiner Geburt noch kein Mensch und deshalb auch noch nicht vom Grundgesetz geschützt ist, der ist in meinen Augen ein widerlicher, gewissenloser und skrupelloser Mensch mit einem schlechten Charakter und ein Antichrist.
Solange wir Bürger und insbesondere diejenigen, die ein C in Ihrem Parteibuch führen oder auf der Wahlliste ankreuzen, zuschauen wie in GAZA tausende Menschen – überwiegend Kinder – umgebracht werden für eine „neue“ Ideologie und dies mit Staatsräson begründen, solange wir weiterhin Waffen liefern, solange ein per Haftbefehl Gesuchter frei in der Welt reisen kann gegen gültige internationale Gesetze,. solange wir Angriffsschläge gegen bestehendes Recht selektiv akzeptieren und noch davon sprechen, „da mache jemand die Drecksarbeit“ für uns, solange wir den „Verteidgungskrieg“ inder Ukraine unterstützen, ohne uns Gedanken zu den Opfern auf beiden Seiten zu machen und überhaupt keinen Ansatz für Frieden erkennen lassen, solange ist es besser zu schweigen. Wer eine Abtreibung bis zur 12. Woche für Tötung hält, müßte zwingend alles tun, um den Tod bereits geborener Kinder zu verhindern. Oder geht es hier doch eher wieder um eine „Züchtigung“ der Frauen? Die aktuelle Rückwärtsbesinnung – von Remilitarisierung, Unterordnung unter einen Hegemon bis zur Vasallentreue, Bau neuer Mauern (nur bedenke jede Mauer hat 2 Seiten) bis hin zur Abtreibung manövriert uns (BRD) in eine sehr, sehr kritrische Situation, die uns nahezu handlunsgunfähig macht. Das, was mir die KI zur Position von Frauke Brosius Gersdorf sagt, würde ich als Frau und Mutter unterstützen. Es ist natürlich interessant, dass hier bisher eine rein männliche Perspektive abgebildet wird.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/welche-rechtsauffassung-vertri-31uiaa6KRfaQQ7ErKREBXg
Dear Ms. Orbach-Yliruka, I would like to briefly clarify that a largely mature embryo is viable after a premature birth. The discussions about abortions are one thing, the reality of life for pregnant women, mothers, fathers and families is the more important issue for me. In our social environment, children have been a risk of poverty and a career obstacle for decades, so they are often not welcome. The dramatic demographic change that will take full effect in the next twenty years is a consequence of this. It would be better for all of us to empower young mothers in particular and, just as an example, to enable them to study and have a family at the same time. There are also other ways to make abortions less likely without interfering with women's right to self-determination; these possibilities should be discussed and created. I agree with you that we should stand up for respect for law and order, as nothing else can protect us as individuals and as a community. Unfortunately, with regard to what is happening in the Middle East, this position is only held by one party, apart from minor parties. I hope the electorate will realize this at some point.
Ms. Brosius-Gersdorf herself draws false conclusions, perhaps even deliberately and for tactical reasons. The assumption that human dignity applies wherever human life exists does not originate from biologistic-naturalistic world views, but is rather based on Christian and moral philosophical dogmas. Biology merely establishes when and how new human life begins and refrains from addressing the question of the perceptibility of human dignity depending on the stages of development.
It would be helpful to de-ideologize the debate. Granting human dignity to an egg that has just been fertilized is about as absurd as waiting for the moment of birth. In my opinion, human life begins with the ability to acquire consciousness, which undoubtedly takes place in the womb. When this phenomenon can be expected to begin at the earliest is a matter for debate within a narrow framework.
It is possible that Ms. Brosius-Gersdorf would like to avoid putting Christian values up for discussion, as such a debate would bring to light the loss of the CDU/CSU's brand essence. This could easily result in these circles starting to restore lost values, which must be prevented at all costs.
Be that as it may, Ms. Brosius-Gersdorf is completely unsuitable for the office of federal constitutional judge for other reasons as well.
Und im ÖRR wird wieder nur unvollständig berichtet. Es ist mal wieder von den bösen sozialen Medien die Rede und die Zitate wären verzerrt worden. Frau Hasselmann von den Grünen zieht mal wieder die Karte der „armen Frau“. Und das Frage und Antwort Spiel zwischen Frau von Storch und Kanzler Merz, das klar macht, was die designierte Richterin für eine Meinung hat, wurde nicht gezeigt. Hätte ja die Zuschauer auch beunruhigen können.
This nomination by Ms. Brosius-Gersdorf completely ignores the voters. For me, aborting a mature embryo is a homicide. Many women suffer all their lives from legal abortions that took place a long time ago. I wonder why? After all, the prospective constitutional judge has revealed to many people the actual state of our political class. When this federal government ends, we will no longer recognize the CDU. The fact that Spahn absolutely had to become parliamentary group leader shows me that the tail has been wagging the dachshund there for a long time - but hope dies last.
If I were to take such a moral and ethically more than questionable standpoint on a public platform, I would be more than certain of a veritable shitstorm. Most people would probably have no problem calling me an antisocial subject. Others with such an attitude can easily become a constitutional judge. Find the mistake.