I am writing in appreciation of David L. Bosco's column on "The Dying Debate" (March 14, 1994). Bosco takes a thoughtful, understanding approach which is often lacking in the abortion debate.

It is indeed a triumph for the advocates of abortion if they have managed to convince Bosco that "there is no empirical way to resolve the dilemma of the fetus." There is no lack of evidence that a fetus is alive. How do we determine that anything is alive? Does it have a heartbeat? Does it require nourishment? Does it grow? Frankly, there is no biological evidence that a fetus in NOT alive.

This evidence--that a fetus is a human life--is the reason that pro-lifers cannot abandon the abortion debate. I have been interested of late to hear advocates of abortion calling for us to go "beyond abortion." It is unfortunate that by this they mean that we should all accept the fact of abortion, stop talking about it and move to other issues.

A parallel development is the attitude summed up by the words of one of our fellow students: "I'm pretty sure it's a human life, but ending abortion would have such huge consequences that it's better not to." There is a grain of truth here. Abortion has become a part of our culture. It is no longer reasonable for pro-lifers to think that reversing Rove vs. Wade will solve the abortion issue. That must be the first step, but it must be followed by broad changes in our society.

These changes must help us to support women in crisis pregnancies while treasuring the lives they are bringing into the world. However, it is just as unreasonable for abortion advocates (and even moderates like David Bosk) to expect to see pro-life Americans give up the fight to stop abortion. When Bosco considers the abortion debate, he hears "the sound of principles dying." When we consider it, we hear children dying. And that is why we cannot go "beyond abortion." Olive "Polly" Langendorf '97   President Harvard-Radcliffe Alliance for Life