Hans Jürgen paper is a high animal. He is a president of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe and since short happy receiver of a letter of the Pornojägers. By Martin Humer.

(kreuz.net) with large interest we pursue the work of the Lebensschützers Günter Annen in Germany.

Also is us the memorable decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 28. May 1993 admits.

The important statement in this decision: Abortion is illegal.

Also the recent decision of the Federal Constitutional Court against Colline Hoffer and Günter Annen are well-known us.

The meaning of the latter decisions: The Federal Constitutional Court tries to eliminate the juridical insecurity which resulted since the year 2000 from deviating right opinions of the courts.

The Kinderabtreiber exerted so-called actions to restrain interference against the Lebensschützer Günter Annen many processes - both criminal procedures and civil processes -.

The Courts of Justice and courts of Germany judged very differently.

The right opinion of the single judges and the senates was determined less by the law than of the personal views of value.

Primary task of a constitutional court is it to examine whether new laws are legal in the sense of the condition. It is not task of a constitutional court to intervene in current legal proceedings.

But the different right opinions of the judges arranged the Federal Constitutional Court to repair juridical insecurities.

It is to be said however that the Federal Constitutional Court with its decision of 28. May 1993 juridical insecurity to the light brought, by recognizing that the child abortion is illegal „“.

The abortion law, which representatives of the people in the German Bundestag 1974 decided, lost thereby as „positive right “at meaning.

A law, which is unconstitutional, is zero and futile and may from there in a constitutional state not be used.

In addition comes: The life of humans is the protection-worthiest right property on ground connection. Likewise the right to lives.

Also unborn humans possess an inalienable became. It is already recognized later in the Roman realm and in § 22 of the general civil law book than person.

„Even unborn children have from the time of their Empfängnis to a requirement on the protection of the laws. If it is to be done around its rights, they are regarded as bearing. “

Unborn ones are even entitled to inherit.

In the requests with court the Kinderabtreiber refers against it to its own „rights “how:

Quite on unfolding the personality

Personality right of the plaintiff

Quite on free organization of the personality and

Quite on an autonomous range of private life organization

Quite on keeping of its rights as a physician

Quite on a rehabilitation of injured personality rights

Quite on an intact physician patient relationship

Quite on unbelästigte patients

Quite on the furnished and expenditure-practiced Gewerbsbetrieb

But for reason-talented, culturalconscious, civilized humans the right to lives is the protection-worthiest right property.

All other fundamental rights are not secondary. But they subordinate themselves to the right to lives.

„The life of humans may never become available” again “, everything else is a new way after Auschwitz and duty living “, said Günter Annen.

Scientifically it is confirmed free of doubts for everyone, who wants to know it, that the child not born yet is in each phase of his development humans.

Furthermore the multivariate analysis states that it concerns humans, whom it did not give ever.

But the Federal Constitutional Court reprimanded the Lebensschützer Annen now, because it compares the mass murder at that time by the lining up of the terms Holocaust Babycaust with the today's mass murder.

This comparison is not correct actually.

The commanders of the concentration camps and their executioners murdered mostly fit-to-fight humans.

In the abortion hospitals killing commands murder conceivably most defenseless humans.

By this comparison to judge, me the Kinderabtreiber seems to be still larger criminals, than the commanders of the concentration camps.

The mass murderers let themselves be paid today for their murder business also still well.

Mr. Andreas joy man, corridor route 17, in 90419 Nuremberg performs its blood business generally speaking hospital `clinical center Nord'. he murdered there, according to own data, annually 3,500 to 4,000 unborn humans and takes for it per murder approximately 400 euros

3500 X.400 euro is almost 1.5 million euros. Monthly conversion approximately 116,676 euros.

This Kinderabtreiber kills already since 1994 in `the clinical center Nord'. the blood business to him so far summa summarum 17 million euros registered

Whether the National Socialists their executioners also so well paid?

I understand the Kinderabtreiber, if they do not want to permit that someone calls their business murder.

Who of the Schikimikis would a murderer like to finally be?

Money-put in. But nevertheless the good reputation do not lose.

Does it seem for the sake of completeness me importantly to answer the question which murder is?

, murder is deliberate TO DEATH BRINGING of innocent humans “.

The Lebensschützer Klaus Günter Annen is German citizen.

He forgot neither the crimes of the concentration camps nor the crime of Dresden.

, never again “he calls his association, which he created.

The system of government of a democracy permits it to me and gives me the possibility of intervening also as individual citizens against crimes.

This possibility becomes of the judgement of the higher regional court Frankfurt of 21. March 1947 file references 4 Kls. 7 47 (Hadamar) confirms.

I could be prevented from there also from nobody. I do not want to answer for as German of this time new „Auschwitz “.


Martin Humer is a chairman `of the like a Christian social working group Österreichs'

Benedikt: @ DDL

Only, see you, BGB and StGB define at least, what „humans “actual the GG do not do that.

*seufz*. No, neither StGB nor BGB define, what humans are.

@Benedikt, which concerns „the right “: How did you become the possibility for an action, which may not take anybody to you, designate, if not as „right “?

It is keins. First of all it can be taken, secondly: Look times to the roomroom rooms: Syringes under national control. A right is not justified also here. At the most a tolerance.

They have the RIGHT in Germany to do everything what is not forbidden. And abortion, if it fulfills the editions for the Nichtbestrafung, IS NOT forbidden, as you know.

But surely, in the sense of an ascertainable illegality. Abortion is a crime, which is always forbidden. Exempt from punishment positions do not waive this.

Hódmezövásárhelykutasipuszta:: dusselexmachina = DDL = Dominique Toussaint

Repetitions do not prove to be true lie. Here from the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of 28.5.1993:

[left] the Basic Law obligates the State of, human life, also the unborn, to protect… Comes already to the unborn human life. The legal order must ensure the legal conditions of its development in the sense of its own life right of the unborn one. This life right is not only justified by the acceptance on the part of the mother.

…

Legal protection is entitled to the unborn one also opposite its mother. Such a protection is possible only if the legislator forbids it an abortion in principle and it thereby the fundamental right obligation imposed to deliver the child. The fundamental prohibition of the abortion and the fundamental obligation for delivering the child are two inseparably connected elements of the constitutionally ordered protection.

The abortion must be for the whole duration of the pregnancy in principle as injustice respected and accordingly legally forbidden (confirmation of BVerfGE 39, 1 [44]). The life right of the unborn one may not, even if only for a limited time, which is not free, legally bound decision third, and it the mother, is surrendered. [left] http://… w.ejura examensexpress.de/… course/entsch_show.php? Alp=1&Seite=0&…

Maurice Corvisier: @ machine damage

Man, you it is so ill that you cannot at all differently to confirm than my analysis continuously.

Get yourselves assistance! Toussaint, you get broken!!! And I do not want that.

I am Moritz.

deusexmachina: @Benedikt & iustus

But I please you, I am nevertheless reading powerful and see, which definition for which meant actual means you, I writes the word „puzzle bits “only so to the fun?

In sequence: „Beginning of the birth “is nothing else as a specifying. One was original probably the opinion, „birth “is clearly enough, but like in the lawyers' tricks, one by the reality of a better one was so often instructed, from there specifying. Thus I do not have the smallest problem, particularly since I am also against abortion beyond the 12-Wochen-Frist (except indication medical with really CONCLUSIVE ONE).

Only, see you, BGB and StGB define at least, what „humans “actual the GG do not do that. On what appoint yourself thus constitutional court judges, if it concerns this question exactly, who when „humans “is? What do you mean?

@Benedikt, which concerns „the right “: How did you become the possibility for an action, which may not take anybody to you, designate, if not as „right “? That is also independent of any restrictions. If abortion is not right, how you explain then judgements, which call the restriction to this decision illegitimate?

They have the RIGHT in Germany to do everything what is not forbidden. And abortion, if it fulfills the editions for the Nichtbestrafung, IS NOT forbidden, as you know.

„So far a right obligation of the woman does not exist, is her acting permitted as practice of their fundamental rights. “

antiHomoLobby: @Benedikt

„… The criminal protection begins with the Nidation. Fertilization cannot be consulted for proof-legal reasons for such a definition… “

Thanks! That is conclusively argues. Who still rants against it and/or which contradicts, is simply incorrigible and with the best will no longer seriously to take (because obviously only in pure provocation interests).

Benedikt: @ DDL

On the basis of the principle that this is „a free country “, it is permitted everything, what is not explicitly forbidden. Turned around means: If there is a punishing standard, which limits itself in such a way in the trailer record that it places an abundance of cases straLOS, then that constitutes a right - the right to do something what is not forbidden.

Sorry, but that for your part is a private acceptance, which is far distant from the legal understanding. A Abtreiungsrecht would mean that a woman without indication might drive their child off at any time of reasons. This is however not the case. Abortion is in principle forbidden and a passing, only for completely determined cases is exempt from punishment posed it.

Oh by the way, where ich's straight sees coincidental: „With regular birth process the body fruit becomes humans in the sense of the killing crimes with the using of the opening-sore (following BGHSt 31, 348) “.

Interesting, not? A further puzzle bit.

For what? For the definition of humans demanded by you? Wär again the nothing, if you read exactly: Humans in the sense of the killing crimes. The criminal protection begins with the Nidation. Fertilization cannot be consulted for proof-legal reasons for such a definition