Abortion

[BlacKnight]

beat me in SJ

Quote[/b] ]
who is to say that one life is more important than the other? And if the mother has other children (or even if she doesn't), I think there is much more to be considered than how horrific it all looks.

Are you a Christian?  If you are what I'm going to post my carry some weight, if not you may as well just skip reading this.
The answer to the question is simply this, God ordains everything.  His laws should not be broken for anything, the ends do NOT justify the means.  Christ said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"  
One of His laws is that we should not commit murder.  It doesn't matter whether we think we're serving a higher cause or not, we should not do it!  If God wills that the mother should live, then nothing the doctors say beforehand is going to kill her.  And if He decides her time on earth is done, do you really think you can keep her here?  I'm not saying this from a cold heart, as I was typing this I felt Him say "You can say this Andrew, but what if, some years from now, that is your wife hanging in the balance?"  I admit that really really scares me, but I hope I would follow Him.

 

[Saint Judas]

Hi Blacknight,

First let me thankyou for sharing your views - believe it or not I share some of them! But naturally since I have to nitpick everything as much as humanly possible till I come to a conclusion lol, I will pick out the points I either [1] disagree with or [2] just want to play "devil's advocate" with, and when it's all said and done hopefully we'll both have learned something... or at least have had a lively discussion ; )

BK: [My twin sisters were born almost two months early.  Thier due date was on July 4th, and thier birth date was on May 16th.  So under todays laws babies who were older than my sisters were when they arrived at home are being slaughtered in the gruesome manner!
Are you telling me that my parents, supposing they did not want these 2, could have taken them home and drowned them in the bath tub?]

No, and I'm wondering what i said to give you that impression - it wasn't my intention to imply that. I do not agree with partial birth abortions, or abortions past the 3rd trimester.

BK: [That at least would be more "humane" (goodness I hate that word) than what was just described!]

Humane to whom? (And the word kinda annoys me too ; ) ) Depending on the reason for the abortion, it might be "more humane" to the babies but inhumane to the mother and to her other children if she has them. But you see, that would depend on the situation and for some reason people seem to believe that every situation has a mass produced solution.

BK: [To the whole morality debate:
There is one thing that can be said about relativism: You must believe absolutely that there are no absolutes.]

Hmmm. I don't believe morality is absolute - and my belief doesn't qualify as an absolute either. I think it was in this thread that i described my beliefs as a "working hypothesis", subject to change if I learn something new that renders a present belief inaccurate/invalid. Who says that someone's belief is or must be an absolute? Everything I have learned and experienced so far leads me to believe that, as far as morality, everything is relative, but hey, if someone can show me evidence that indicates otherwise, my belief may very well change.  

BK: [Mr. Eon, morals are "just a shared code of beliefs"?
Supposing that they are, why then do so few people follow them?]

This is a good question with several correct answers (one of them being that people DO follow morals, just not necessarily *Christian* morals) but has NOTHING to do with whether or not morals are relative. Of course, we can discuss this too if you like. But I think the "origins of morality" thread looks promising ; )

BK: [Many people, if you ask them, will tell you that lying, cheating, stealing, or any number of other things, are wrong.  Now I know that it is humanly impossible NOT to sin, but I have had a person (no joke) tell me that, "lying is wrong, I lie all the time."   Those aren't his exact words, but that is exactly the message he conveyed in plain unmistakable language.]

Yes, many people have trouble following their own moral code. Have you ever told a lie, and if so, why? People often lie out of fear - in middle school and high school, kids often exaggerate to the point of lying in order to impress their friends (fear of rejection). People lie because they've done something wrong and they are in fear of the consequences. Or any number of reasons. (But this still doesn't have anything to do with the *origin* of morality...just thought I'd point that out LOL)  

BK: [So we have a delima, people know something is wrong(morality), but totally disregard that knowledge.  Look at this situation from the outside.  If a system contains something, but does make signifigant use of that thing.  What does that imply?]

It could mean several things. For instance, it could mean that the "thing" is useless for whatever reason, perhaps outdated. In your example, I think the answer is that it is difficult,  and people often steer away from difficult things and choose options that are easier in the short term (though often they make things much harder in the long term). However I disagree that people "totally disregard" the system. In general, we don't go out from day to day and see people torturing each other in the street, and I'd say that most people aren't blatanty manipulative just for the bloody heck of it, etc. There are many people of integrity out there. Yes, there are people who lie a lot, and cheat a lot, and steal a lot. But I wouldn't necessarily call them the majority.

BK: [Why would humans create morality when it is precisly what impedes many of our human desires?]

Morality wasn't *created*, per se; a moral code emerges from a sense of empathy for others.  I will not steal from someone because I do not want to have things stolen from me. I will not murder another person because I would not want to be murdered....etc. If I had no empathy, I wouldn't care how my actions affected others.

Also, it doesn't necessarily impede our desires. It may impede them in the very short term (i.e. when we're angry at someone and have the urge to punch them in the face, or when we're tempted to lie about something that embarrasses us, etc), but it actually helps us to achieve our long term human desires, which for most (if not all) people are love, happiness, good friendships, etc.

You see, this does not require a god, it only requires the ability to *feel* pain and then empathize when others feel it (thus not wanting to cause them any). In fact, it amazes me when people ask agnostics and atheists "well if there is no god, what's to keep people from going around committing {insert atrocity here}. I keep thinking "So the only reason you aren't out burglarizing homes is because you believe that a god will punish you?!" Frankly, I will do the right thing just because it is the right thing, NOT because a deity will punish me if I don't!

Honestly, if the people who ask that question are only restraining themselves because they believe there is god who will punish them otherwise, I think they are far more disturbed than the person who believes morality is relative!

BK: [The obvious answer is that we did NOT in fact create morality, it was put there by a Creator.]

I'm truly puzzled as to how you reached that conclusion from the initial premise.  

Take care,

Saint J

 

[Saint Judas]

Hi again Bk!

me, previously: [who is to say that one life is more important than the other? And if the mother has other children (or even if she doesn't), I think there is much more to be considered than how horrific it all looks.]

BK: [Are you a Christian?  If you are what I'm going to post my carry some weight, if not you may as well just skip reading this. The answer to the question is simply this, God ordains everything.  His laws should not be broken for anything, the ends do NOT justify the means.  Christ said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"  

One of His laws is that we should not commit murder.  It doesn't matter whether we think we're serving a higher cause or not, we should not do it!  If God wills that the mother should live, then nothing the doctors say beforehand is going to kill her.  And if He decides her time on earth is done, do you really think you can keep her here?  I'm not saying this from a cold heart, as I was typing this I felt him say "You can say this Andrew, but what if, some years from now, that is your wife hanging in the balance?"  I admit that really really scares me, but I hope I would follow Him.]

You know, I usually edit repsonses so I can just respond to the specific point, but this was such a thoughtful response I couldn't see anything to edit. It is apparent to me that you are definitely not, as you say, "writing from a cold heart" and though my views are different (because I don't believe that the future is planned, though in many ways I wish it were so), I am really glad you shared these thoughts.

(Don't worry, I can still find something to argue about

)

Take care,

SJ

 

[Saint Judas]

Hello everyone.

No time to read or repsond to posts right now but I wanted to submit this in re: to the discussion on partial birth abortions. I had said in an earlier post that a bill to outlaw them had previously been turned down by Republicans who wanted an across the board decision and just banning PB abortions wasn't enough. Apparently they have now accepted banning PB abortions specifically (and I say good for them).

____
WASHINGTON (March 13) - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to ban a procedure that critics call partial birth abortion, and conservatives confidently predicted the bill would soon be signed into law after an eight-year struggle.
 
''This is a heinous act. It is immoral. It is wrong and it is simply something a civilized society should not tolerate,'' Sen. Michael DeWine, R-Ohio, said after the bipartisan 64-33 vote to limit the range of procedures available to women under the 1973 landmark Supreme Court abortion rights ruling.
 
The Senate's action cleared the way for expected House passage this spring. President Bush has said he will sign the measure, a revised version of bills that former President Clinton twice vetoed as unconstitutional.
 
''Partial birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity, and I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban it,'' the president said in a written statement. ''Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America.''


Though outvoted, abortion rights supporters renewed a pledge to challenge the bill in court. ''Anti-choice senators simply ignored Supreme Court precedent and voted to criminalize safe abortion procedures,'' said Kate Michelman, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
 
The bill prohibits doctors from committing an ''overt act'' designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. Partial birth is described as a case in which the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the event of a breech delivery, if ''any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.'' Sponsors of the legislation say it is used roughly 2,200 times a year, principally during the 20th through 26th weeks of pregnancy.  <<<------------- btw, this is one of things I find unacceptable about them -  if a pregnancy is going to put the mother's life in danger, it seems to me that that info would have been present at a much earlier date and there should be no reason for PB's. The second is that the unborn life could at that point function independently, outside the womb. -SJ >>>
 
The legislation includes an exemption for cases in which the life of the mother is jeopardized, but not for general health reasons.  

Passage of the legislation was not in doubt in the Senate, and support crossed party lines. Voting in favor were 48 Republicans and 16 Democrats. Opposed were 29 Democrats, three Republicans and one independent.
 
Many supporters of abortion rights began abandoning defense of the procedure years ago - particularly after abortion foes began describing it in graphic detail.<<<------------though I do not agree with the procedure, I think that forming an opinion about it based on whether or not it's disgusting to view is a poor basis for a decision. Watching a graphic film just causes knee-jerk gut reactions that have little to do with any rational thought. Peta uses the same emotionally manipulative tactics to convince people that it is morally wrong to eat meat. When people see the slaughterhouse films, they feel bad for the animal and rational thought ceases. Not that it is irrational to feel bad for an animal if it's being treated inhumanely but making a decision based on a gruesome film that is designed to get emotional responses is not going to produce solid rational decisions  
-SJ>>>

Public opinion polls show 70 percent support for a ban, although three states have rejected referenda to prohibit the procedure.
 
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and other critics fought over three days of debate to derail the measure. In the end, they prevailed only on a nonbinding vote in support of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to end their pregnancies.
 
That vote on Wednesday served to highlight the discomfort of abortion rights supporters.
 
A total of 17 members of the Senate voted first in support of a general right to abortion, then turned around less than 24 hours later and voted to ban the one specific procedure. Among them were Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who took her seat this year and was casting her first votes in Congress on abortion.
 
At the same time, the presence of a majority in favor of the Roe v. Wade ruling left the Senate prognosis clouded for other items on the agenda of abortion opponents. They are expected to seek approval for restrictions on the distribution of foreign aid to groups that perform abortions, for example, and may seek to attach similar restrictions to legislation to create the international AIDS effort the president has asked Congress to approve.
 
Republicans also hope to pass long-stalled bankruptcy legislation, stripped of a provision that was designed to stop anti-abortion protesters from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines.
 
As for the measure passed Thursday, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., indicated that Republicans intend to drop the nonbinding provision from the legislation that is sent to Bush for his signature.
 
Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he hoped the House would vote next month. Bush's promised signature would clear the way for a court battle.
 
The Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law in 2000 that sought to ban the procedure, saying it created an undue burden on a woman's right to end her pregnancy.
 
The court's ruling cited two grounds, that the legislation failed to provide an exemption in cases in which the woman's health was in danger, and that it defined the ban so broadly that more than one procedure could be affected.
 
Santorum said repeatedly in Senate debate that the bill had been drafted to address the court's ruling, although Boxer and others disputed him on that.
 
The bill defines the banned procedure in different terms than an earlier version of the legislation. It states that the procedure is ''never medically necessary.''
 
The legislation provides a jail term of up to two years for doctors who knowingly violate the ban.

AP-NY-03-13-03 1435EST
 
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

 

[Mr_Eon]

There are two standards.

The first standard is how we feel we should be treated by others.

The second standard is the behaviour we feel benefits us most personally.

That is the sole and only root of the disagreement between right and wrong. Expedience versus Fair play. Decency versus Greed.

The only reason there IS even a conflict is because, as rational human beings, we understand that if we act as WE wish without regard to others and so does everyone else, then we actually end up worse off on balance.

Hence shared codes of behaviour.

Quote[/b] ]''Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America.''

Translation: Woot! I finally managed to shove the toe of my boot into your mouths. Get ready for the rest of it, in stages!


Eon

 

[izip]

Mr. Eon:

You posted these thoughts earlier, which I challenged and you never responded:

Eon:

Quote[/b] ]Morals is just a shared code of beliefs and behaviour - the majority decides whether something is "good" or "bad".

Examples include Smoking, Slave Owning, Fashion, Drinking, Swearing, wearing of hats...

To your “majority decides” argument. That’s a non-sequitir. It doesn’t follow that because the majority decides something that it is therefore moral. Because the majority of German society condoned the slaughter of the Jews of Europe, it doesn’t follow that such actions are moral. Some of the examples you listed aren't even issues of morality, so that's a category fallacy, and the other examples are addressed in the beginning part of my reply.  

Furthermore, because you haven't proven the validity of moral relativism, you are in no position to say differences of morality are simply relative: expedience vs. fair play; decency vs. greed. You are simply saying "there are two standards, this is the root of conflict, the end." There is no valid rationale backing up your presupposition of moral relativism.

 

[BlacKnight]

Thank you izip, that was quite a bit clearer than I was. Eon may have simply forgotten to address your post, I know from personal experience that things may get busy and checking the forum is low on my list or priorities.

SJ:
I know you don't support partial birth abortion

Your previous post wasn't up when I started typing, and that wasn't directed at you.

Quote[/b] ]
I don't believe morality is absolute - and my belief doesn't qualify as an absolute either.

So you would classify yourself more as a seeker? I admit, that the statement "relativist's believe absolutely that there are no absolutes" only applies to those who are firmly entrenched in relativism. Perhaps that will help you in your search. If you decide to adhere to relativism, then the above statement would have to apply to you. Would it not? If it does not, then perhaps you should focus your search on moral absolutes.

Quote[/b] ]
for some reason people seem to believe that every situation has a mass produced solution.

In some things we are given very clear guidelines about what we should do. But I've already noted my views on that

 

[Mr_Eon]

Izip, moral by whose standards? The citizens of 14th century York would no doubt have agreed with the Nazi idealogy regarding Jews. Thanks in no small measure to Christian propaganda against them, as it happens.

Once upon a time there used to be no calling more honourable than to strap on 4 stone of Iron and go kill Islamic children for the Lord. These days, we would regard that as being an immoral act.

You believe that morality is an absolute, because you are firmly enmeshed in the four dimensional matrices of Space/Time. From your artificially static snapshot perspective you might think that morality has been the same since time immemorial - in point of fact what we consider to be moral and immoral changes from year to year.

Eon

 

[izip]

I’ll restate my argument against the majority deciding morality.

First of all, under this view you cannot criticize another societies practices because there is no external standard, law above society, against which societies can be judged. The torture of prisoners, ethnic cleansing etc. are all morally benign.

Second, why is the majority relevant to determining morality? Culture is complex, with many overlapping societies. The moral convictions at work, may be entirely different from those of one’s religious community, which of these groups is primary and why?  

Third, even if the policy does represent the will of the people, how does it follow that it is moral? Do the Nazi’s have moral justification on the basis that their society said genocide was acceptable?

If this view, normative ethical relativism, or the majority deciding morality, is correct, then government sponsored genocide can only be observed and not judged, because each society determines what is moral and no standard exists above the laws of society against which societies can be judged. Therefore, the Allies were immoral to stop the Nazi’s. Further, because the majority decides what is moral, any Germans who resisted the genocide, were immoral. Instead, they had a moral obligation to participate in the genocide, because society determined that genocide was moral. After all, under this view people have a moral obligation to do what society says they “ought” to do. Indeed, if America decided that we should kill all jews, blacks, and asians we would have a MORAL obligation to do so under your view.

Next, this form of relativism doesn’t distinguish between the legal and the moral, because the legal is by definition moral. That is to say, if a society says genocide is moral, it is automatically moral, there is no distinction between the moral and the legal. Abortion is moral, because the government says it is so. But there appears to be a difference between what a person has the LIBERTY to do, and what a person should do.

Finally, there can be no moral reformation. Martin Luther King Jr. was immoral because he went against the majority’s laws at the time. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who urged German Christians to stand up to Hitler was also immoral. According to this view they are the worst kind of criminals because they challenged the moral consensus of their own society.

-Ian

 

[BlacKnight]

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ Mar. 18 2003,5:14)]Izip, moral by whose standards? The citizens of 14th century York would no doubt have agreed with the Nazi idealogy regarding Jews. Thanks in no small measure to Christian propaganda against them, as it happens.

From your artificially static snapshot perspective you might think that morality has been the same since time immemorial - in point of fact what we consider to be moral and immoral changes from year to year.

Eon

Morality only changes from year to year if you consider what is moral to equate what society believes is right. Then yes, morality does change quite often. However, if you have some standard that does not change, and you follow that standard, then you have a moral guide line that is absolute. It is not changed by what a society believes. Whatever a person's view an what the Bible says about war, I think I can safely say that everyone agrees that the wholesale slaughter of noncombatants is murder. If 14th century York had been adhereing to the moral guideline it gave lip service to I doubt the crusades would have ever happened.
If a person claims a title that does not mean they deserve the title. If I try to convince people that I am part of the military (which I am not) that doesn't make me part of the military. Even if I convince everyone I know that I really am, I am still a civilian. In order to actually be in the military I must first enlist and go through training. Christianity is the same way, it doesn't matter how many people I convince that I am a Christian, if I haven't gone to God and repented of my sins I'm not. Were there Christian's among the crusaders? Almost certianly. Were all the crusaders acting out of love for God? The answer is obvious from their actions.

 

[Mr_Eon]

The force of dialectics is such that the truth is what we believe it to be. After all, someone is lying only when they knowingly tell a falsehood - if they are honestly mistaken then no sense of wrongdoing is attached to the act.

This goes to prove what I'm saying about morality being relative. There IS no higher code of morality, because morality - by its very definition is a HUMAN thing. It's our definition of our own behaviour - to do something that you do not believe is wrong is not evil, true evil is to perform an evil act with foreknowledge of its nature.

Eon

 

[BlacKnight]

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ Mar. 20 2003,4:27)]The force of dialectics is such that the truth is what we believe it to be. After all, someone is lying only when they knowingly tell a falsehood - if they are honestly mistaken then no sense of wrongdoing is attached to the act.

But how many evil acts can you commit without realizing it? Being mistaken is an obvious one. I suppose you could accidently steal something. You can accidently kill someone. But saying that "accidents are not connected to a sense of wrongdoing" proves nothing. God knows accidents happen! He put accident clauses in old testament law!
But back to my original point, how many wrongs can you commit unknowingly? You can't rape someone without knowing it. You can't have something very long before you realize it's not something you payed for. You'll probably eventually find out what you told someone was not in fact true. So at some point you're going to know you did something wrong.

 

[Mr_Eon]

So finding out something you did was wrong after the fact makes it evil?

 

[izip]

Mr. Eon,

You're not addressing the arguments being put forth (particularly by me), this discussion is quite pointless if you're not going to do that. You saying morality by definition is HUMAN thing, first of all, is not logically substantiated philosophically, or by major ethicists. Secondly, as I said, you're not addressing any arguments only repeating yourself (which doesn't prove anything). If I need to repost my arguments for the 2nd time, I'll gladly do so.

Furthermore the truth isn't per se what we believe it to be. You're just making a blanket statment again. Our beliefs don't necessarily corroborate reality. I may believe pink unicorns are flying over my head right now, it doesn't follow that that's true. The act of believing in something in and of itself, doesn't make that belief true.

 

[BlacKnight]

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ Mar. 21 2003,1:07)]So finding out something you did was wrong after the fact makes it evil?

If you persist in it, yes. Case in point, there is a small calculus study group I am in at college. A few days ago one of the guys accidently walked off with someone elses calulator thinking it was his. If, after he found that he had someone else's calculator along with his own, he had simply kept it or sold it, then that would be theft. Fortunately he brought it back the next time we met. But how many people, if they are given the wrong change at a department store, think "woohoo, windfall. It doesn't matter, a store that big will never notice a $10 loss." but if asked, will state quite strongly that theft is wrong? There are any number of other examples. The point is, humans have a basic knowledge of right and wrong, and that knowledge stays constant. But another constant is we humans will suppress that knowledge every chance we get, unless we turn our lives over to God. So how does that indicate that morality is a human creation? Wouldn't you think that something that is continually supressed like that would eventually cease to exist? Yet over the course of human history, through all the immorality of our race, we still have a conscience.

 

[Mr_Eon]

You're saying that truth and factual correctness are the same thing. I disagree and contend that truth is a three edged sword.

Your truth.
My truth.
THE truth.

This is a concept that stretches back as far as the Greeks - when they posited the creation of a non-existent ABSOLUTE state of an object or item. I absolutely cannot remember whether it was Aristotle, Pythagoras or Plato... Possibly none of the above, but I can look it up for you.

Anyway, this ABSOLUTE state doesn't ACTUALLY exist anywhere except in the mind of human beings. When I say the word, for example, horse to you, you have a picture in your mind of what a horse is. This ABSOLUTE horse doesn't look like any SPECIFIC horse, yet somehow it includes any number of SPECIFIC horses. In other words, it's the truth, but it's not factually correct.

That's where we differ - you believe the truth is, of necessity factually correct. I don't.

To answer your questions, Izip. By the standards of the time, Martin Luther WAS immoral. A heretic in fact. Of course, by the standards of today he was a hero.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Let's think about this guys: what's a number? What's a word? In fact, what is a letter? Merely a delegated symbol to represent an ideal, an idea, a thought, an action, an item, perhaps?
The number "1" is merely used to give a title to a singular, unified, or "apart" form of something. Hold up a finger. You say you're holding up 1 finger. Why? That's the name we've given to attribute to that particular number of things. It helps in communication. Truly, that's all words are: helpers in communication.
Horse could have been applied to pig and pig to horse...that doesn't change the animal. A horse is a horse and a pig a pig. If the pig we know of today was called a horse then we would not look at pigs as pigs...we would look at them as horses.
Truth is not relative my friend. Morality is. Opinions are. Truth is not. Truth is a constant. Gravity doesn't change because you think contrary. Consensual reality is a totally bogus and false belief. If enough people say something is or isn't then it is or isn't. What kind of crap is that? No matter if the whole world disbelieves that fire will burn their flesh, it still will. Try it. Believe as hard as you can and place your hand on the oven burner. It will singe your pink little palm. But you believed otherwise! What happened? Believe harder...try it again.
Beliefs don't dictate an existence. I can believe as much as I want that God doesn't exist. But he does. I can believe as much as I want that you are all murderous kangaroos and I have to kill you all to protect myself...but you aren't.
The list goes on.

 

[Mr_Eon]

All of the above only holds true for so long as you and I mean the same thing by "Pig" and "Horse".

Back in pre-history the earliest horses were small herbivores, not much bigger than cats. Meanwhile Pigs were once the Alpha Predators of a whole bioscape. Cats? Not even in the picture, man... To a person who's only seen domestic cats the word "Big Cat" conjures up a very different picture to that of a savannah dwelling bush man.

Face it - language and thought are abstractions. As you said, slapping a label on something is an arbitary act - the issue is ensuring that the same thing is meant by the same words. Otherwise all you have is noise.

Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Pre-history? Horses small? What happened that made them big? And why aren't they getting bigger? Or why didn't they stay small?
Noise....that's it if you look at it. Even this smattering of communication here is just randomness. It's weird. It makes me wanna lie down and not move for a long, long, long time.

 

[BlacKnight]

Quote[/b] ]
You're saying that truth and factual correctness are the same thing. I disagree and contend that truth is a three edged sword.

Your truth.
My truth.
THE truth.

I'm not quite certain what you mean by your first statement. If you mean that I believe that morality is a singular constant no matter what you, I, or anyone else, believes, then you are correct in saying that's what I believe.
Your "horse" example is not quite accurate. You're correct that if you say "horse" I see what I think of as a horse. However, that is simply because horse is the designation given to a species. If you were to speak in more detail (a brown horse) we would be thinking of something more simlar.
Morality is similar. If we start talking about morals we both know what we're discussing. The simple rules of life, things everyone has burnt into their conscience. But what is called morals in the world is also a broad subject, I can believe one thing is right and you can believe something totally different. So what is right? Well, fortunately God has given us a solid guideline that isn't affected by what anyone believes. THAT is what my morality is, and that is what I strive for. Unfortunately I don't always match that guide perfectly, but God picks me up and helps me through it. So yes, I don't believe morality is fluid. The Truth is in the Book.