Skip to main content

Does the German Basic Law Protect against Human Cloning?

  • Chapter
Human Dignity and Human Cloning
  • 171 Accesses

Abstract

If the question were raised, whether the German Basic Law “prohibits” cloning, my answer could be rather short. But this is not the case. The constitution as the basic law of a state does not normally prohibit acts of individual citizens. However, the assertion that the German Basic Law does not prohibit cloning has to be qualified: Human Cloning is prohibited by an ordinary law — § 6 of the Act for Protection of Embryos1 — and can be punished by imprisonment up to 5 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Reprinted in the annex of this volume, under V 20.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Constitutional Court postulates an “order of values” (Wertordnung): BVerfGE 5, 85, 204 et seq.; 6, 55, 72; 7, 198, 204 et seq.; 21, 362, 371 et seq.; 49, 89, 141. See H. Goerlich, Wertordnung und Grundgesetz (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. H. Dreier, in idem (ed.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Vol. I (1996), Art. 1 I, No. 7–12; M. Herdegen, in Maunz/Dürig, Grundgesetz, Vol. I, Art. 1, No. 7–12; C. Starck, in v. Mangoldt/Klein/Starck, Bonner Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Vol. I (4th ed., 1999), Art. 1, No. 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. J. Ipsen, Staatsrecht II: Grundrechte (7th ed., 2004), No. 45 et seq.; id., Gesetzliche Einwirkungen auf grundrechtlich geschützte Rechtsgüter, JZ 1997, 473 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ipsen, Staatsrecht II, supra note 4, No. 89 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Dreier, supra note 3, No. 47 et seq.; W. Heun, Embryonenforschung und Verfassung — Lebensrecht und Menschenwürde der Embryos, JZ 2002, 523;

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. Hilgendorf, Klonverbot und Menschenwürde — Vom Homo sapiens zum Homo xerox? Überlegungen zu § 6 Embryonenschutzgesetz, Festschrift H. Maurer (2001), 1157;

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Hofmann, Die versprochene Menschenwürde, AöR 118 (1993), 376; Ipsen, Staatsrecht II, supra note 4, No. 213; id., Der “verfassungsrechtliche Status” des Embryos in vitro, JZ 2001, 989 et seq.;

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Merkel, Forschungsobjekt Embryo (2002), 110;

    Google Scholar 

  10. E. Schmidt-Jortzig, Systematische Bedingungen der Garantie unbedingten Schutzes der Menschenwürde in Art. 1 GG, DÖV 2001, 931 et seq.;

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. Sendler, Menschenwürde, PID und Schwangerschaftsabbruch, NJW 2001, 2148, 2150; the “dominant opinion” postulates also the embryo as a bearer of Human Dignity: see BVerfGE 39, 1, 41; 88, 203, 251;

    Google Scholar 

  12. W. Höfling, in Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar (3rd ed., 2002), Art. 1, No. 51;

    Google Scholar 

  13. H.D. Jarass/B. Pieroth, Grundgesetz-Kommentar (6th ed., 2002), Art. 1, No. 6;

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. Kunig, in v. Münch/Kunig (eds.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Vol. 1 (5th ed., 2000), Art. 1, No. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  15. This is an inconsistency of the “dominant opinion”, especially of the Constitutional Court: Human Dignity is also claimed for prenatal life during the first three months of pregnancy when its development is at its mothers discretion.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cf. Heun, supra note 6, 523 (“pre-embryo”); Ipsen, supra note 6, 990 et seq.; Merkel, Forschungsobjekt Embryo, supra note 6, 110 et passim.

    Google Scholar 

  17. BVerfGE 88, 203, 255.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Merkel, Forschungsobjekt Embryo, supra note 6, 75 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heun, supra note 6, 523, No. 100 qualifies this position as “ridiculous”.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Ipsen, Staatsrecht II, supra note 4, No. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cf. Dreier, supra note 3, No. 52 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  22. This dogmatic figure was created by the Constitutional Court in the second abortion-decision. See BVerfGE 88, 203, 254.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. Ipsen, supra note 6, 993.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See BVerfGE 88, 203, 254; Ipsen, Staatsrecht II, supra note 4, No. 93 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Merkel, Forschungsobjekt Embryo, supra note 6, 264 et seq.; Dreier, supra note 3, No. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See the contribution of R. Wolfrum/S. Vöneky in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cf. Dreier, supra note 3, No. 37 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Silja Vöneky Rüdiger Wolfrum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ipsen, J. (2004). Does the German Basic Law Protect against Human Cloning?. In: Vöneky, S., Wolfrum, R. (eds) Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6174-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6174-1_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-14233-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6174-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics