UrRong. The idea of committing a slew of felonies to prove a point is misguided, and your thought experiment is a flawed attempt to draw a comparison between murder and inaction. Your proposed publicity stunt would not have the intended outcome of conflating the concepts of murder and permission of death in the minds of the public, but instead would only result in the death of an innocent child.
The point you are trying to make about third-world poverty and the indifference of those with the resources to prevent it is valid and worth considering, but your proposed solution of kidnapping a child to prove your point is both unethical and immoral. You claim that this child would have died if you had not intervened in his life, but you fail to consider the fact that you are now responsible for his death. You would be taking away his chance of a better life and his right to die with dignity.
Furthermore, your plan fails to take into account the psychological trauma that the child would experience as a result of his abduction and the emotional distress of being placed in a cage in a strange place. You also fail to consider the potential legal ramifications of your actions if you were to be caught.
In conclusion, your thought experiment is a flawed and unethical way of trying to draw attention to the issue of third-world poverty. There are many other ways to draw attention to this issue that do not involve the death of an innocent child, such as raising awareness through activism, lobbying for policy change, and donating to charities that provide aid to those in need.
