'Big Brother' and a woman's rights

How ironic that Monday's opinion page had three unrelated letters that actually butt up against each other. One about disabled services, another decrying the ills of socialism and big government and the third about abortion and Mother Teresa, with his issue being whether an unborn child is a blessing or a burden, which really relates back to the first two.

One writer related her difficulties of having a disabled child, who is seeking help in facilitating the needs of her child to enhance his quality of life. It isn't something she can do alone.

Which brings us to the letter about failed socialism. One man's socialism is another woman's assistance on behalf of her son, is it not? Whatever name one applies - charity, socialism, assistance - it still boils down to someone needing help and what the response should be to that call for help.

If there will be no assistance forthcoming after compelling a woman to have a child (a burden) that she could not sustain in the first place, who is the winner here? The man who forces her to deliver and then turns their back on her because that assistance is deemed "socialism"? The woman with an unwanted child, which child might likely feel the lack of affection its entire life?

Until we can iron out this dilemma, wouldn't it make sense to allow the person directly involved to make their own choice, since they are the one who will live with the result the rest of their life? What actual business is it of ours? Would the writer on abortion want perfect strangers coming into his home and telling him how to run his life? Is that not the perfect description of "Big Brother"?

Rosemary Colbert

Schaumburg