BreakPoint: Beyoncé’s Three Hearts

Our Feelings Don’t Trump Reality

Objective realities aren’t subject to feelings, but increasingly, that’s the verdict of our celebrity-driven culture. Just ask Beyoncé’s twins.

With few exceptions, the entertainment industry is committedly pro-choice. Whether it’s Scarlett Johansson and others in a recent “Stand with Planned Parenthood” ad campaign, stories from celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg about how they don’t regret their abortions, or financial support for Planned Parenthood from names like Lena Dunham, John Legend, and Pink, actors and musicians are overwhelmingly on one side of this cultural debate.

But every so often, someone wanders off-script and talks about the unborn not as mere “rapidly dividing cell masses,” but as babies, with heartbeats, and with value.

The most recent celebrity to break form was singer Beyoncé. Despite participating in the aggressively pro-choice Women’s March in D.C., the expectant mother-of-twins has encouraged her millions of fans to talk about and celebrate her unborn children as if they were, well, children.

At the Grammy Awards on Sunday, she appeared on stage pregnant and dressed as a goddess in a performance dedicated to “birth and motherhood.” Now I’m not endorsing the performance itself, which was pretty bizarre and maybe a little sacrilegious. But what struck many was how Beyoncé and her fans on Twitter and Facebook freely referred to the twins in her womb as “children,” not fetuses or any other dehumanizing euphemism popular with abortion supporters.

Her performance was a follow-up to her recently released pregnancy photo shoot, which took the Internet by storm shortly before the Grammys. In the most-liked upload in Instagram history, Beyoncé posed, hands on her baby bump, with the caption, “I have three hearts.”

Hearts! As in “beating hearts!” As in the kind pro-choice activists go to incredible lengths to convince us are just “contracting cardiac cells.”  And notice Beyoncé also equates her babies’ heartbeats with her own. They are, in her eyes, fully human.

Let me emphasize this: Don’t Google Beyoncé’s pregnancy photos. Some of them are pretty inappropriate. But Beyonce’s Instagram post and Grammy performance highlight the unspoken, false assumption that unborn babies have personhood and humanity only if they’re wanted. If they’re inconvenient or untimely, they’re disposable. In other words, our feelings about them determine what they are.

It was this assumption Yahoo News anchor Katie Couric took into her recent interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show, where she discussed her forthcoming National Geographic documentary on gender identity. Now Couric has made no secret of her support for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. For her, the unborn aren’t persons. They’re choices. And yet at the same time she insists that babies in the womb can “feel” gender confusion—something clearly beyond the capabilities of a mere cell mass.

So what’s behind this glaring contradiction? Simply this: the conquest of feelings over reality. According to pro-abortion reasoning, unborn babies, especially early in pregnancy, aren’t human beings with a right to life. Rather, they’re choices to be made.

But pro-choice celebrities have no trouble speaking of their unborn children as being human beings when they choose to keep them. In other words, what makes them human is how their parents, society, or a news anchor feel about them—not some inherent quality they share with all unborn babies.

The Christian worldview cuts in diametric opposition to this anthropology, and to any feelings-centric approach to truth. That unborn babies are inherently valuable image bearers is true regardless of how we feel about them. Christians embrace objective reality, one not subject to the whims of choice, and not influenced in the least by how famous your mother is.

Now I’m happy for Beyoncé. And praise God for these two new heartbeats. But the thousands of heartbeats quieted each year by abortion are no less human and no less valuable, no matter how we feel about them.

Further Reading and Information

Beyoncé’s Three Hearts: Our Feelings Don’t Trump Reality

As this “celebrity” example illustrates, a beating heart signals to all the world what’s true: the unborn child is a human being–no question. Why not use the enthusiasm generated by Beyoncé’s announcement to present the case for life? Check out the resources below to help in that effort.


Find a BreakPoint radio station in your area–Click here.


Why Pro-Life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers
  • Randy Alcorn
  • Hendrickson Publishers
  • November 2012
ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments
  • Randy Alcorn
  • Multnomah Publishers
  • November 2000
The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
  • Scott Klusendorf
  • Crossway Books
  • March 2009

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Henry Vernon

    Hi John…Thank you for sharing your article…You are clear in your position on abortion which I totally agree with…Abortion is murder…Accordingly, I differ with you on when “human life” begins vs. when “biological life” begins…Hence when is abortion abortion?…I hope you can understand my positioned disagreement and open for dialogue…Henry

  • Greg Ness

    Thanks for your thoughts on Beyonce’s statement about her unborn twins.

    I like to turn the beginning of life questions upside down and why a person believes an unborn baby is NOT human. Questioning the questioner is very powerful here.

    As you may have said:
    Is it true that what makes unborn babies human is how their parents, society, or a news anchor feel about them—and not some inherent quality they share with all unborn babies? Does this as in the children’s story of the ‘Velveteen Rabbit’, that a baby is only real when he/she is loved?

    Regarding gender and the NG magazine and video special:

    If society teaches now that the original two genders of boys and girls are to be brought up without differences; what is it that defines the man and woman they become besides their DNA and the consequential physical differences? Doesn’t gender identity demand a set of gender charateristics?

    Greg Ness
    Redmond, WA

  • R. Brian Phillips

    Great points, as always. I might add that the church is susceptible to this, too. Not too many years ago, I heard a fellow believer defend his actions, which were clearly un-Biblical, by saying, “I don’t feel any conviction from the Holy Spirit that I was wrong.” All he needed to do was search the scripture, and he would have found many passages that would have shown his actions didn’t line up with the teachings and admonitions of Jesus, or any of the Gospel authors. The Church needs to be so alert to the possibility that the current cultural worldview might be seeping into ours. And, so that I don’t appear to be throwing stones, I’m not excluding myself. I’ve been just as guilty of being a poor imitator of Christ, as my brother in Christ mentioned above.

  • Gladys1071

    The truth of the matter is as human beings we are flawed, and nobody is perfect and we will stay sinners until the day we die. We don’t have a clear unflawed view of objective morality, if we think we do we are delusional. We see thru a mirror darkly. Yes in some ways our morality is subject to the circumstances we in at the time. When the rubber hits the road, we will make decisons based on the subjective circumstance, not on our convictions. It is part of the human condition