Inthe April 3 issue of The Dartmouth, columnist Kevin Walsh '98, laid siege to Dr. Henry W. Foster's nomination for the position of Surgeon General ("Protest Against Foster's Nomination is More Than Righteous"). Walsh uses the flap over Foster's nomination to make a case for the pro-life position. "The fight against abortion is not just righteous," he states. "Pro-lifers are not just righteous. We are right."
Anais Nin, an American writer, observed, "There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of us acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic."
In other words, absolute truth is, in fact, not knowable. Perhaps there is a God who knows the difference between absolute rights and wrongs, an omniscient being who defines morality, but as far as I know, he hasn't imparted more than the basics to us, mere mortals.
Most religions agree -- honor thy father and thy mother and the Sabbath; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not covet, bear false witness, steal or commit adultery; and don't take the Lord's name in vain.
Further than these rather obvious strictures, the rest is intuited by scholars critically reading the Torah, the New Testament, the Kaballah, the Koran and other religious documents. They stretch and improvise the import of these texts just as the Supreme Court of the United States, when it is making rulings on modern-day issues, interprets the meanings of amendments to the Constitution and second-guesses the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
So religious "law" is often no more than a learned opinion. Rabbis, priests, pastors, imams and other religious leaders teach their followers their version of truth. They are, perhaps, more qualified than the average person to interpret Biblical works, but there are no qualifications for having an opinion. So right and wrong are relative concepts. No one has an exclusive hotline to the truth.
Abortion should be a choice. Women and men should be given free reign in their decision to have children -- when to have them, and even if to have them. This doesn't mean I know that abortion is a "right" thing to do. This doesn't even mean that I encourage it. This simply means I advocate choice.
Not just anyone has the emotional and physical capabilities to become a successful parent. Some people cannot afford to be parents. It takes a strong person to admit that he or she won't be able to handle the job of parenting, just as it takes a strong person to admit that he or she doesn't have all the answers.
It is neither my place nor Kevin Walsh's nor the GOP's to determine what constitutes absolute morality. When there is so much diversity of opinion involved, how can we dictate behavior to others based on our own assessment of "right," especially when what they do is within the bounds of the law in a democratic society.
Saying that pro-lifers are "right" is like saying that Catholics are right. Or Jews. Or Protestants. Or Buddhists. Or Hindus. Or Atheists.
The argument over abortion is as nettlesome as the conflict over religion, and
like the conflict over religion, it will probably never be conclusively resolved. Millions have died as a result of religious conflict. It is time
to realize our past mistakes and take a lesson from history.
We need to respect each other's right to have a different opinion, especially on issues such as these. Maria Irene Fornes said, "I have to live with my own truth. I have to live with it. You have to live with your own truth. I cannot live with it."
To declare oneself "right" on an issue of opinion is to disregard all teachings of tolerance and compromise, and to effectively spit on one's educational background.
