On Aug. 12, you published a letter to the editor that criticized a mailer sent out by the David Woodson campaign in which he pointed out that John Hyman had been a Republican. 

The criticism raised was based in the author’s belief that the parties had completely changed their positions since that period. 

It is not clear to me that this is the case. Slavery was based in the coldest part of human nature, the part where the well being, the needs and rights of another person are deemed secondary to ones personal goals or wants. 

The argument voiced by Democrats such as Stephen Douglas and even Robert E. Lee during the 1850s in the lead up to the war tending to go along the lines of “I don’t personally like it but who am I?” This is the exact same argument used by the Democratic Party today in another issue that involves subjugating the rights and needs of another person to your own goals and desires: the issue of abortion. 

The reasoning of Stephen Douglas in the 1860 presidential campaign could be effortlessly tailored to fit the discussion around abortion today. 

The Democratic Party has so fully embraced this moral equivocation that Gov. Roy Cooper actually took the step of vetoing the Born Alive Act, which would have protected infants who survived a botched abortion. 

The Aug. 12 letter to the editor may be correct in that the Democratic Party no longer embraces slavery or segregation, but the thought process that allowed them to do so in the first place is alive and well and is shaping the way in which they approach abortion. 

I thank David Woodson for raising the issue to public awareness.