In the day of legalized slavery there was much heated debate on the issue. Those "scientists" of the day said the slave was more related to the ape and thus had no legal rights and was more animal than human. The political parties of the day (Democratic and Whig; there was no Republican party at that time) embraced this "science" as a way to silence the critics. Certain "elite" and "intelligentsia" of the day backed this "science."

On the flip side were the abolitionists. These people invoked God as the one who determines who is free and not free. They said it was a sin to own slaves. Many abolitionists cited the Constitution as their source for proving ownership of slaves was illegal ("All men are created equal").

Then President Buchanan (bowing to political pressure) allowed the slavery issue in the new Northwestern territories to be determined by the residents of those territories. Prior to his administration this was illegal by treaty. A certain young politician was so enraged by the repealing of this treaty he joined a brand new political party, the Republican Party. This man's name was Abraham Lincoln.

Fast forward to our day. The issue of abortion. For the most part the Democratic party, the elite, and the intelligentsia say it is a woman's right to abort a baby from the mother's body. The fetus was not considered fully human (sound familiar?) thus not entitled to protection under law. The science of the time (1973) supported this as per many opinions set forth by doctors. The politicians backed this science, as did the Supreme Court justices. The Democratic party embraced this science. Also, abortion has a little known economic factor as in that of slavery. Certain body parts are harvested from the dead children and sold.

On the flip side are those who are anti-abortion. They say God says it is a sin (sound familiar?). These people are primarily of Lincoln's party. As the abolitionists before them, these people have cited the Constitution as proof that abortion is illegal. They have also shown that the science of the 1973 abortion law decision was flawed and the current science of genetics supports their argument. Genetics states that a person is 100 percent complete at conception and the body is simply a manifestation of the genetic expression. My question is thus:

Are you for slavery? Are you for abortion? Do you see the historic parallel? We all know slavery is an abomination. We saw a man so enraged he went on to join a new political party and become one of our nation's greatest presidents. We have learned, evolved, and are better for it. Why is it that we are now repeating our history, not on slavery but abortion. The science states it is wrong, the Constitution says it is wrong, when are we the people going to see it is wrong.

When you say abortion should be kept legal please place yourself back in time and say to a kidnapped African slave and his family who are being treated as a sub human that you believe slavery should be kept legal because science says it is OK. If you cannot do this with a clear conscience then how can you support abortion when science says it is not OK? Next time you profess your party affiliation you better think long and hard about your choice.

J. SCOTT Comey lives in Attleboro and describes himself as an independent voter.