Wish you’d quoted that bit originally 
I rescind my objection, and will allow to return to baiting the bacon. 
I am not sure (nor care) what the label would be to describe my view, so feel free to pick one. 
I do believe that there are some consistencies in what we as people consider right and wrong (murder and rape being two examples), but my primary point is that outside of a few core consistent areas such as this, the majority of debates can be deeply rooted in different definitions of what is right, and therefore we should be open to exploring and understand what people think is right and how they reach that viewpoint.
And I’m asking: how you decide whether some moral question is in the “core consistent areas” or whether it’s in the second category? Do you just count people and see if there seems to be a consensus (what percentage constitutes sufficient consensus?), or do you use some other mechanism?
BTW. One of the most interesting debates I’ve had on the internet. Thanks all.
And yet some would quibble over the definitions of those things. For instance, most of the aforementioned pro-lifers would regard abortion as a form of murder, but I suspect you wouldn’t. For others, euthanasia is a sticking point. Some would regard the taking of someone’s life in defence of your home or country as murder, others wouldn’t.