My personal commentary on the the supreme court decision to leave abortion rights up to the states as of 6/24/22. Instrumental and acapella versions available for whoever wants one or the other or in case the noise obfuscates or detracts from what I'm saying.

Since the leak about the presumed decision I've not been able to stop thinking about this and now that it's happened I really felt the need to talk about it. Since I don't have any social media presence this is how I felt comfortable with expressing my view.

Below is the transcript I wrote and read from with a couple tangents. The noise segment is a home practice for the 2020 Detroit concert mixed with a few unused assets.

So yea fuckin no has traditionally been an apolitical entity. I don't personally like to or tend to put that in my work. The project is more aligned to deal with my personal emotional discord and while politics are linked to that I tend to obfuscate it and focus more on my relationship with myself and others close to me. I can't do that with this. Overturning Roe and allowing states to mandate whether or not someone can have an abortion is a bridge too far because of how immediate it is. This is something I never thought I'd see in my life. I was born in 93 so the concept of an abortion is something I've taken for granted. Now that it's being taken away I have a lot of thoughts on it.
One of which, the most in the forefront of my mind, is that this is an attack on poverty. I feel as though a lot of people don't see it that way. So let's get rid of the worst case scenarios of rape, incest, and pregnancy complications that threaten the mother. I feel as though those are a given for abortion, and while others don't, let's leave it for now. The people most likely to seek an abortion, statistically speaking, are single mothers below the poverty line. Mothers who realize that they, under these socioeconomic conditions, cannot afford to have another child. These women often are working multiple jobs to support their families. Daycare for their children is often incredibly expensive and can be unsafe. This is if they don't have family available to watch their kids while they're at work, which is likely, as the poverty cycle is often inherited. The mother being overworked and unavailable also effects the mother child bond, negatively imprinting a sense of emptiness in both that continues the cycle of mental stress that leads to unwanted pregnancies. Not to mention there are still arguments over maternal leave and compensation especially in lower paying jobs. Affordable and useful healthcare are still out of reach for many, especially in regards to mental health. The stress of pregnancy both physically and mentally is greater on some than on others, it depends on the person. The social stigma on impoverished pregnant people is still astounding, both in personal circles and in political ones. People are called welfare leeches, irresponsible, selfish, taking advantage of the system. This is for having the child. So with all this weight and stress and pressure they're then also vilified for seeking an abortion.
Anti abortionists have several arguments to this. Use safe sex is one. It's a good idea, but a lot of these people advocate against sexual education in schools. So until you have a national standard of understanding sexual practice that argument falls flat. In addition, there is no fool proof prevention from pregnancy; every contraceptive has the ability to fail. The argument from there is abstinence. So again, we look to the impoverished person. Humans are hard wired to have sex and we live in a society that actively encourages it. A lot of women struggle with incredible amounts of pressure to put out to be accepted. Also cohabitation is a lot more affordable than living alone. Also sex is a natural way of easing stress and tension. I'm not exactly advocating any of this, I'm just stating facts. If you feel you're able to dictate the sexual lives of people you don't know that's way more dangerous than banning abortion. So with all this in mind, unwanted pregnancies are going to happen. And under socioeconomic stress they happen more frequently.
Another argument I hear is just have the pregnancy and then put the child up for adoption. The problem with this is the current state of adoption and foster care in America. If the child isn't adopted quickly they will go on to be put in the foster care system. Often bounced around from home to home, often in squalor or dangerous situations. This will have a horrible effect on the childs most important state of learning in life. They tend to pick up dangerous coping skills and habits that come with displacement if they aren't adopted quickly. Even then there is a good chance they will be mentally scared from the process. I have no doubt people are adopted successfully and happily. I also have no doubt that a majority of people that go through the fostering system end up homeless because that's a statistic. Once they're emancipated at eighteen with nothing to their name, a lot of foster youth end right back up in the cycle or worse. So until there's reform with that, it isn't an argument to me.
What seems to be the pattern is anti abortionists are for the rights of the unborn until they are. They have this idealistic vision in their head for them that so rarely comes to fruition. And after these unborn become adults and seek government aide they are deemed freeloaders. This is my problem with the fervent anti abortionists; they aren't fighting as hard for the rights of those who are actively struggling.
Last case, if it comes down to killing is wrong, there's a couple of avenues with that. I've heard, what if a mother wants to kill her eleven month old if there's no cut off? That has to do with the life cycle. The same reason a fetus cannot survive out of the womb at one month and we don't celebrate birthdays at the day of conception. The potential for human life does not equate to human life. The cut off point for that is when the umbilical cord is cut and the child, premature or not, can survive outside the womb. As far as when that occurs is an argument for biologists, not me. I'm open to having the conversation about the amount of time available for an abortion, not for it being banned outright. In addition, if we're talking killing, you should be as against the defense budget as I am since a whole lot more innocents are killed by our troops overseas than through abortion. That's up for debate I'm sure, but from my perspective the sanctity of life is what we're arguing about, so it isn't really an argument. That will lead to the religious conversation later.
A brief mention about rape and incest. If those are permissible but consensual pregnancies aren't, that's going to lead to false accusations and innocent people may go to jail. Not to mention the legal process for such a case is so drawn out and this is a time sensitive subject, it just doesn't line up. So don't bring that up, it isn't an option. That's why I don't like to focus on that, it being the worst case scenario. The argument you end up with is a no win situation, and I feel like it's cut and dry, if you're raped or in a case of incest, you should be able to have an abortion in addition to taking your perpetrator to court. These aren't up for debate with me and are separate issues that cohabitate the most ugly side of what we're talking about, so they do need to be said. But that isn't the underlying issue.
Another brief mention about arguments for, what if the father wants the child but the mother doesn't? Let's just hope you've had this conversation before this comes up. Because if you haven't and don't understand each other to this point, the child will struggle with parents who cannot communicate effectively and is likely to repeat the process. This is an issue for people who have the ability to carry out a pregnancy and no one else.
With all that said I'm not pro abortion. I really think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is for abortion in the sense that the action is great and makes everyone happy. It's a solemn act that shouldn't be desensitized and has repercussions, both socially and mentally on the person having it. Increasing the vilification of the act is simply not helping the situation, where anti abortionists are taking an effect of their attacks and making it a talking point. People who get an abortion and go back to the fold because it's the only support system they have become advocates against it, when if they had a healthy support system in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. Getting back to it, I am not for abortion. I'm also not for children going hungry or uncared for. I'm not about women being forced to carry a pregnancy for someone who raped them, or if it will cost them their health and autonomy physically, or if we have to squabble over how much food stamps people get while food gets thrown out from going bad on the shelves. I'm not about how the foster youth gets ignored and spat out upon emancipation. I'm not about the lack of resources when it comes to mental health and hygiene. So until you make these problems go away, until you make a world where abortion doesn't make sense, I'll accept that it's a means to an end for a people who are abused and taken advantage of by a corrupt capitalist system.
So let's move on to some of the uglier more paranoid thoughts. That this is leading to further state division which could cause another civil war. The fact that, while I don't actually believe for a second this is a truly religious fight, that whenever a religion controls the actions of a government it leads to genocide and oppression. Let's go there. I think it's laughable that the majority of the politicians that are for this call themselves Christian when they ignore poverty as I've stated before. If anything Jesus was one of the most important of Socialist thinkers, the sermon on the mount will attest to that. The lack of empathy and compassion, especially in the far right, but in most all of the government, points to this not really being about religion. It's about starting a fight for two nations. I've heard, oh just make the trip to a state that has abortion and get it there. We go back to, most people that this effects cannot afford this, or to take time off work for it, or have the insurance for it. I've heard Missouri is making travel for an abortion a non option as well, so this thing is going to be pushed to the limit by the states that support it. This is going to lead the people who can move states to do so for their safety, causing stagnation in the political process and further division in the states. I believe this is the end goal for things like abortion. People on the right and far right want to have their own country. I'm not for this because it will end up being ugly as it was before, leave us open to attack, and even if it did work we would probably end up at odds with each other given the mentality of the reasoning of righteousness on that side. The idea that states should be able to decide what was and wasn't ok for their people didn't work in the time of slavery and doesn't now. The concept of an overreaching government imposing rules on people that don't want them is something everyone has to deal with. I can relate because I don't agree with where my tax dollars go. There are some things we can't leave up to the states to decide for themselves and the ability to receive an abortion at all is one of them. To prevent this, an electoral party system that has more than two majority options is completely necessary. There also needs to be greater checks to the senate to reform it against stagnation.
On the concept of this being a religious argument, I assume it doesn't need to be said that people who are religious could just not have abortions. And again the argument for the sanctity of life is moot when the church supports wars overseas over resources. The separation of church and state is a requirement to keep from the government oppressing people on religious grounds. The Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Native Americans were all done on religious grounds. We could go on about how there were ulterior motives for all of them, but the fact that they were done with religious persecution in mind must be stated. Once you convince people that what you're doing is right as a government because it is the will of God you have reverted back to the dark ages. So that isn't an argument for me, and this is an alarm to continue the removal of religion from centralized government.
I know I'm considered by many to be a moderate. My beliefs and ethics are complex and personal to me. I often don't trust people enough to talk about them. But what just happened is inexcusable. What has just happened has made me an active enemy of this precedent and to those who put it in action. I won't stand by. I won't be silent.