entertainment

John Legend on abortion law boycotts: 'Money talks'

21 Comments
By AMANDA LEE MYERS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

"Particularly when these studios are hiring people and bringing people to the state and saying, 'Come work with us here in this state,' but if you get pregnant there you're going to be treated like a second-class citizen,"

That's the most silliest comment I've heard from the pro-abortion crowd, there wont be any second class treatment of pregnant women full stop in any of these states.

the idea that any state would get involved in making a reproductive decision for a woman "is just unconscionable to me.

The abortion industry is subsidised by the taxpayer, taxes are collected by the state - its that simple unless the abortion industry becomes self funded until then the States are entitled to get involved. Its the same silly argument feminists love throw around when men make comments, again the abortion industry is subsidised by the taxpayer and net taxpayer in society are men, men are entitled in having a say in how their hard earned money is spent.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

John Legend gets involved with this stuff for one reason - publicity. His music sales have tanked, as have ticket sales.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

No actual babies are being killed.

What is abortion?

I do wish people (men) would stop laying that guilt trip on women.

If they didn’t do anything wrong they wouldn’t need to feel guilty about it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

but if you get pregnant there you're going to be treated like a second-class citizen," he said. 

Perfect example of straw man argument, and a testament to the insanity of the left.

Not being able to kill babies at your own discretion does not equal being treated like a second class citizen. Nevertheless, that's a classic bully tactic of the left.

The left doesn't see the glaring hypocrisy. For example, a bakery is not allowed to deny service to a gay couple because of the bakery's beliefs; yet hollywood can strongarm anybody who doesn't agree with them.

This is a total insult. Apparently, if you don't march in lockstep, aka, fascism, then you deserve to have your livelihood messed with.

It's a shame to hear this coming from an African American, when Margret Sanger started planned parenthood with the purpose of euthanizing and terminating blacks. Even today, you have a better chance of being aborted as an African American fetus than you do of being born.

Just sick, sick, sick all around.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

the idea that any state would get involved in making a reproductive decision for a woman "is just unconscionable to me.

Yet he expects the federal government to fund abortion--which means pro-life taxpayers should pay for abortions! This guy doesn't understand the word unconscionable! Happy to say I have never bought a John Legend album.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Funny when guys join in the abortion debate. Same ones who want control of it are the same who would deny any access for women to debate if it's men getting sterilized or castrated.

It's because your use of of the word "free" is doublespeak for free, aka, on the tax payer's dime.

Go ahead: have sex when you want where you want and with whom you want--just accept personal responsibility and don't ask tax payers to pay for your personal choices.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes boycott those anti abortion states

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

May the innocent and babies win the brutal war against them by heartless organizations like Planned Parenthood who profit off vulnerable women.

And may every pregnant woman, planned or not, receive every bit of support they need to help them do the most noble and difficult job in the world, bearing our future generation.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I don't care if people want or need abortions. It's their choice. But there is zero reason for anyone to expect the government i.e. taxpayers to pay for it. If you don't want men choosing for women (my body, my choice), then don't suddenly think it's ok for the government to get involved.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The difference between this and the gay-bakery case is the issue of discrimination. Boycotting these states have nothing to do with discrimination, it rests on the believe that a woman's body is hers and that life doesn't start at conception or with a heartbeat.

I don't believe life starts that early, I don't believe any babies are being murdered. I think people are free to feel that way, but I'm horrified to see the consequences this have on real people. No one gets an abortion for fun - it's a hard decision, based on love for a hypothetical child you know you can't take care of. There's even evidence that abortion lowers crime rates, because unfit parents don't have to become parents and raise a child with high probability of being criminal.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

it rests on the believe that a woman's body is hers and that life doesn't start at conception or with a heartbeat.

I'm on the border here. If you could explain to me exactly when life begins, it would help me a lot.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No actual babies are being killed. I do wish people (men) would stop laying that guilt trip on women.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No actual babies are being killed. I do wish people (men) would stop laying that guilt trip on women.

Former Planned Parenthood Clinic manager, Abby Johnson (woman!) , would say true indeed you are killing babies; and indeed Kermit Gosnell is rotting in prison for killing thousands of babies.

If the so-called glob of cells were not alive, there would be no need for an abortion in the first place.

The "blob" has it's own dna. A mother can drink alcohol and not suffer life altering damage while the "blob" suffers birth defects. So, yes, it's an independent life!

No woman has ever given birth to a giraffe; what's inside the womb is a human life. What women are killing is human life.

As long as nature requires a man to make a baby, and as long as men pay taxes and have valid moral opinions, they have a say.

Using your logic, Roe vs. Wade needs to be thrown out since 9 men on the supreme court decided over that case.

My guess is you're okay with men deciding when it's convenient, and you're are against men deciding when it's inconvenient. Misandry doesn't give women a pass to kill babies.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Toasted Heretic

No actual babies are being killed. I do wish people (men) would stop laying that guilt trip on women.

I would agree with you that in the very early stages after conception 'no actual babies are being killed'. I would describe that abortion act as an unfair denial of an opportunity to have a life by people who do have a life.

But, the level of violence against the unborn and denial of thier rights gets more severe very rapidly. A 12 week fetus has every human feature as well as internal organs. They can survive outside the womb as early as 24 weeks. A 40 week fetus is as human as a newborn, but can be legally aborted in some places.

So, to be fair, the severity of the crime starts off comparatively minor but rising quickly to murder of a human.

So, I ask you the following re abortion at various stages....

1: Don't you think it is wrong to deny a pre-heartbeat (up to 6 weeks) fetus the opportunity to live by violently destroying it and removing it from its mother’s womb?

Please see fetus image here: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-6-weeks

2: Don't you think it’s a crime against an unborn child if at 3 months, it is violently dismembered, the remains vacuumed from its mother’s womb and thrown in the trash can?

Please see fetus image here: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

3: Don't you think it’s crime against an unborn child if at 9 months, it is violently dismembered, the remains vacuumed from its mother’s womb and thrown in the trash can?

Please see fetus image here: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-40-weeks

Looking forward to your reply.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I meant to say your use of the word access is doublespeak for free.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yet he expects the federal government to fund abortion--which means pro-life taxpayers should pay for abortions!

I find it unconscionable that any of my tax money could possibly go to an anti-abortion zealot. But, see, that's how a tax system works: you don't get to pick and choose. Any idiot knows that.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Instead Laws that are agnostic towards religion should be common place, and enforceable everywhere.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Jonorth

it's a hard decision

If the baby is just a blob of tissue with no rights, why would it be 'a hard decision'?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The difference between this and the gay-bakery case is the issue of discrimination. Boycotting these states have nothing to do with discrimination, it rests on the believe that a woman's body is hers and that life doesn't start at conception or with a heartbeat

Cognitive disassociation.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The separation of Religion and Politics should be enforced by a Global Law.

The laws of a Land should not be governed by Religion enforceable by Laws of that land, except towards those who adhere to that Religion.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Funny when guys join in the abortion debate. Same ones who want control of it are the same who would deny any access for women to debate if it's men getting sterilized or castrated.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites