Straight talk needed in abortion debate

Both presidential candidates have presented stands on abortion and, again, both hedged their positions with generalities. While abortion is not a make-or-break issue for me, I could admiringly support a candidate who speaks similarly to the following:

There will always be abortion. We must never return to back street kitchen table surgery.

Every abortion is the taking of a potential human life and the procedure should be undergone only after the most serious deliberation.

Government should take stances and promote activities that minimize abortions - counseling on alternatives, better adoption services, appropriate availability of birth control information and, perhaps, incentives for carrying a pregnancy to term.

Ultimately, it is a women's right to decide! However, there are two cases where this should not be so:

• No teenage girl should be permitted to undergo abortion without the consent of her legal guardian (in some cases, perhaps, a court review may be appropriate).

• As marriage is a commitment of husband and wife to protect the interest of children conceived in the marriage, consent of both husband and wife should be a requirement for the procedure. If a married woman feels that there is sufficient reason to act unilaterally, a sealed court order permitting the procedure should be an alternative.

Also, I would welcome a statement as follows: It is not the role of the presidency to lead on abortion nor is it that of the court. The court has established that abortion is both legal and controllable. It is the Congress that now needs to establish the nature of the controls.

John Elkmann

Winfield