By the early 1970’s, military personnel were called “baby killers”.  I do not know exactly why that was but it could be because civilians including babies were killed in Vietnam.  Civilian deaths during war is a fact.  There was also an iconic and horrific picture which showed a young naked Vietnam girl running down a road whose clothes were burned off of her because of the napalm.  

The Terror of War, by Huynh Cong "Nick" Út via Flickr

No doubt this photograph illustrated the fact of civilian deaths and injury but now it also made civilian death and destruction imaginable to people not involved in the war.  More about photographs making the unimaginable imaginable later.

The term “baby killer” was one of the most identifying terms used during the anti-Vietnam war protests.  Another term used often during that time by many anti-Vietnam protesters was “pig” to describe the police.  It seemed at any protest demonstration shown on television, these terms were always used.  While these terms are technically a noun to describe people, these terms were also a pronoun to describe the Vietnam War in general.  The anti-Vietnam protesters loathed the military so much they not only would shout “baby killer” at military members, but they would also would swear with vile and throw objects at military personnel in uniform when they could.  This behavior lasted throughout the 1970’s. 

I know this because when I enlisted in the Navy in 1981, I would hear “f-ing squid” shouted at me when I wore my uniform.  The tension was real whenever I wore my uniform off base.  The only saving grace was when there was more than two of us in uniform since there was strength in numbers.  I remember how much more receptive to the military uniform people were in foreign countries than back home the whole time I served my first enlistment.  These facts belie the truth about leftists and liberals today who claim to be patriotic.  The leftists will do anything to hide their historical truth at any cost.

Of course, one of the major items discussed, in addition to the Vietnam War, in the 70’s was the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe V. Wade.  It was portrayed then, as now, as a major victory for women’s rights.  I remember discussions in class, when allowed, in a debate club format.  Invariably, it was always frown upon by anyone dissenting from the idea of it being a women’s right to choose.  Amazingly, then, as now, the construct of the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” is always an incomplete sentence.  The sentence should be phrased correctly as “a woman’s right to choose to kill babies”.  No one disputes the idea of a women’s right to choose when and how often she conceives, the only contention is when she decides to terminate her pregnancy, i.e., abortion.

Fast forward to the present.  This past week, my wife and I watched the movie “Gosnell”.  My wife was an unwilling spectator, not to mention a Democrat, but since she said “we” could watch anything I wanted, I made the decision to watch this movie.  I haven’t forgotten it since.  For my wife, this movie made the unimaginable imaginable.  For its part, this movie did an amazing job whether intentionally or accidentally making the point of how any decision towards legalizing abortion is the first step towards condoning the killing of babies and how the act itself is without reason.  My wife said she was confused about why wasn’t the act of “snipping” a baby’s neck with a giant pair of scissors at any time isn’t considered killing?  Or the act of providing “comfort care” to the birth of an unwanted baby who was left to die by starvation wrapped in a blanket isn’t killing.  To confuse the obvious is what leftists want to do.  This is how and why they are able to accomplish things such as legalized abortions, i.e., the killing of babies by another name.