Quote:
Originally Posted by stonwulfe
Hmm... I see immediately the interjection of an agenda. You wish to raise a question of abortion in a thread designated for international politics, in particular issues of the middle east. Now, if you were to mention forced abortions or euthanasia in a dictatorial regime, or the stoning of adulterous women who are discovered pregnant, et cetera, your interjection may hold logical support. However, what you have just done is tried to change the subject of discussion. I would appreciate it, as I'm sure the moderators would, if you kept questions of abortion to the appropriate threads.
|
No agenda and no intention of making this an abortion thread. The fallacy in the original post is to bring the Butterfly Effect into the present. The Butterfly Effect is based on going back in time and altering a known past, seeing how it effects the known future. In reality, the question asked here is not in any way related to changing the past, therefore effecting the future, but speculating on the effect of present events on an unknown future.
The Butterfly Effect is not valid here, because you are not going back to change the past. There is no way to know how any event will effect the future, because the future hasn't happened, thusly my reference to abortions, as you have no way to tell what might have happened were they not to have been done.
I didn't mean to elicit knee-jerk responses, but rather to point out how many parameters there are, all effecting what the future will be. Unless you know a future with Saddam intact, you can not invoke the Butterfly Effect.