My first sample of this writer's exposition, and I am an avowed "fan". Actually got this book from my local library, read it a bunch of times, referred to it frequently in debates with confreres interested in the "essential questions", and decided I needed it on my shelves permanently.
Truly imaginative, as the characters involved in this rigorous and sometimes sensitive debate are all in Prof. Kreeft's mind. They come alive, though, because the "types" they so ably represent are clear reflections of people you and I all know - especially those who just don't recognize that their arguments fail the most basic logic tests.
For example, as I write this (Spring, 2003), a murder case in California charges that the alleged killer has taken two lives - one, his wife, and another, their unborn child. California has decided to pursue both deaths as murders, thereby making it possible to seek the ultimate sanction on the alleged killer - the death penalty.
Meanwhile (and it is hard to believe these legal decisions are taking place in the same country), the legal system of the state of Connecticut has determined that an unborn child is not functionally different from other body parts - teeth, hair, skin, etc. - and therefore does not qualify as a person within the context of the law, so the judges ruled that there is no case to bring against a man who was being charged with attempted murder of an unborn child.
Only a moral relativist can successfully hold these two contradictory positions without conflict: either the fetus/unborn child is a human being/person and therefore covered by the protections of the law, or it isn't, in which case, a person cannot be charged with a crime for killing it.
Perhaps we can encourage our judges to read this work and straighten out this mess they've made. Well, we can dream, anyway ...