I don't think time travel is about wiping people from existence, that kind of extreme adjustment is bound to have greater consequences. I agree it better/easier for Kelly to be raised in the right manner to prevent hin falling into the dark side than to erase him from existence. It isn't about only Nick/Adalind/Kelly but how other lives are affected, good or bad, between Kelly's conception and him being an adult. You would be changing a lot of threads in the tapestry of life in removing one person who is supposed to be born so they aren't born at all. That seems like a greater risk of the unknown than dealing with what you know and trying to fix it.
(03-31-2017, 07:18 AM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:And here's another question, say Nick goes back and doesn't sleep with "Juliette" on that fateful day, who's to say that Kelly won't be born some other time under different circumstances and that the only thing Nick achieved was to rearrange the pieces on the board, in delaying the inevitable he actually causes more problems?(03-31-2017, 07:09 AM)irukandji Wrote:(03-31-2017, 06:52 AM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:(03-31-2017, 06:38 AM)irukandji Wrote: But even at that, it's obvious she's not happy with the baby. If Nick decided he wanted to go through it all again just for a baby, he's burdening Adalind with an unwanted pregnancy.
Nick and Adalind both love Kelly. Time travel to change the past is dangerous so imo against changing it on such a large scale. You are right that if Nick allows Kelly to be kidnapped he could be turned to evil. If Nick can time travel why stop Kelly from being kidnapped which is much safer than stopping someone from being born who was meant to be.
How many lives should Nick disrupt or end to justify baby Kelly?
Time travel to stop important events is dangerous. Physicist who talk about the theory say it would take huge amounts energy to change events from what was suppose to happen.
How many lives should Nick disrupt or end to stop baby Kelly?