Other possible reasons are to fill in the gap of their previous publications where they did not entirely dwell on the social specificities of abortion and euthanasia. Filling the knowledge gap is challenging, since there are serious controversies involved and both for and against argumentation have to be addressed.
The abortion theme is a complicated moral dilemma with social, medical, psychological and even political dimensions. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) try to argue in favor of the ethical considerations involved. What they are trying to communicate in their book is that there are intrinsic ethical issues at stake which can not be overjumped. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the ambivalence of abortion and this is what the authors are doing. They outline the basic line of anti-abortion argument which characterized their respective positions. It appears to me that the method of argumentation that Beckwith and Geisler (1991) apply is rather one-sided. Even though the resent the counter arguments of the other side of the debate, they do not accept them, but attempt to argue back against them. In this situation it looks like the book is one-sided written which spoils the attempts of the reader to really understand the reasons for author’s positions. In the light of the argument of abortion, Beckwith and Geisler (1991) insist on the anti-abortion perspective drawing substantive literature review why they support this. They examine the ethical evidence in detail and critically evaluate the various opinions of those supporting abortion.
The existential question that interests Beckwith and Geisler (1991) is when a human being becomes to be acknowledged as a person with its own identity and unique features. The summarized viewpoint is that full humanness starts with the moment of conception. Both authors are supporters of the pro-life thesis which is oriented to protect life in all its extreme forms – for example denying