Well you can, but then you have a form of relativism taken to reductio ad absurdum, which is functionally useless. What you get is a trivialism in which anything follows (e.g., I believe in God and I don't believe in God, therefore God is a snail.) I don't see how that is a useful sort of reasoning.
That would imply it is a method to reach an endpoint, rather than a method to seek understanding. First, a function it serves, if I hold two view points that oppose each other as true and valid at the same time, I can act as a bridge between two people who each hold one of those view points and enabling them to understand one another better by intuitively knowing how to frame the ones view inside the context of the other. I can translate from Estj to Isfj and back, for instance. I wouldn't be able to do that if I wouldn't be able to hold both their perceptions within mine at the same time.
Then, it's not part of a decision making process that reaches a finite conclusion. The point of it is to be a tool, and the more it grows, the more useful it becomes. Decision making, to me, in such a case, isn't influenced by reason, but by personal values. I hold all of these points to be true, but I chose this one, here, for me, without rejecting the others as false. You have to make a choice, because if you make none, you have no course of action. Indecision always being the worst decision, that would be ungood. Even if you use a finite decision making process, once you examine your final decision, in the case of abortion, for instance, you will find that it is a value judgment, I'm sure, rather than a purely logical one.