>>>>There are a couple issues though that I feel passionate about it, and this is one of them. It is one thing for a candidate to believe in overturning Roe v Wade personally but not making it a central point of their administration because the public wouldn't support the view. it is another thing to promise anti-abortion policies up front.
>>>
>>>"Context is everything." Somebody once said that. I think it was me... just now. ;-)
>>>
>>>Not commenting on Roe v Wade specifically (text), rather just suggesting that it reveals the world view (context) that one has generally. I find that knowing one's regard for Roe explains a thousand other assertions they have made -- and conversely, one's history may be known, then you discover their Roe 'take' and you think "well of course, that figures." It reveals who they think they are and who they think you are and determines the character of the relationships they attempt to establish.
>>>
>>>Ha! I think I've stayed politely abstract here, don't you?
>>>Steven-
>>
>>I'd challenge that it isn't one's view of Roe v Wade specifically but their views on abortion itself. I'd wager that few actually understand the legal issues of the case itself other than it legalized abortion.
>>
>>I think I've stayed politely vague here as well. ;)
>
>Sure, but surely it's not me you're challenging because, per my intro, I'm "Not commenting on Roe v Wade specifically". Also note: abstract != vague.

I wasn't challenging you, but rather your idea that "one's regard for Roe explains a thousand other assertions they have made". Substitute the word "abortion" for "Roe" and I think your statement has greater merit.