This is not an essay on abortion.

I've done some poking around to gain a better understanding of both the legal statutes and social position on abortion in America. Personally I'm a little tired of hearing about it. To me it's just part of that endless bickering that keeps us in perpetual agnosis while we watch our representatives bankrupt our children and play rent-a-cop for anyone with enough cash to finance the swelling burden of campaign fund raising. Abortion is legal in all 50 states and in most of those the line is drawn at viability. That is, the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb, which usually begins in the third trimester. Socially we generally accept it, though no one talks about it lightly. I don't think there are many, if any, who would think that the decision to abort is easy. 

Consider it principally, excluding the extreme circumstances of rape and incest; abortion is kind of like killing. I'll acquiesce for sake of this exercise that it isn’t exactly killing. Lets assume that it’s maybe killing--that is, that we aren't totally sure either way. In allowing or accepting abortion are we not (at least legally) erring on the side of killing? Why are we not erring on the side of not killing? Doesn't that seem like the better decision? How did we come to this decision? I don't intend on making an argument against abortion, but it does demonstrate the argument that I do wish to make: It is not so difficult to justify our decisions. We do it all the time. 

Commitment to an externally developed or even traditional or religious ideology can be valuable. Ross Douthat (from what I hear) is making this claim in his book Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. NPR has been giving the book some coverage and it's been a key ingredient in my most recent syntheses, part of which you are reading now. In an interview on the Diane Ream show Douthat asked that if God is an internal god (see: Eat, Pray, Love) what stops us from just doing what feels good? How do we completely separate our own selfish desires from an internal god or source of truth? As a Mormon, I believe that we can't. 

It is tempting to believe that we humans are capable of objective decisions. I think we can get relatively close when those decisions or ideas do not directly effect us, but enter a conflict of interest and undoubtedly therein is the perfect storm of cloudy thoughts and decisions. In making decisions about our individual lives we encounter countless conflicts of interest. Any internal god will be insufficient in resolving these. 

Religious theology has developed a variety of means for overcoming this problem of discernment. Even Buddhism, which theologically lacks deity, can resolve this conflict. Example: Zen meditation is about forgetting oneself and restoring true thoughts. It aims to see things as they really are. Sikhism and Hinduism have the notion of guru. "Islam" literally means "submission" to Allah. In my religion the use of scriptural canon and the adherence to living prophets is fundamental in discerning the truth from my personal desires.

Religious absolutism, the idea that truth exists externally, is an important anchor for personal decision making. I admit that these absolutes can be dangerous also. Racism, inequality and war are just a few manifestations of dangerous dogma. It is not my claim that traditions should stand wholly unquestioned, but I do believe that it is foolish to abandon them categorically. It seems to me that sometimes we label an ideology as "outdated" and trash it without an honest look at its value. 

It will serve us well if we choose to discern truth based on quality rather than by age or novelty. Isn't that the difference between conservatism and liberalism? Whether truth is sought in tradition or innovation? This dichotomy is harmful. Don't bad ideas occur on both sides of this artificial battle front?