It seems to me that the philosophy of the question is not understood here. I didn't get the gist of it myself at first.
First you need to understand, by killing whom?�
If the mother died due to childbirth, through the fault of the child, then the child can be considered a murderer. But no one will judge him. This is absurd. The child does not understand anything at the time of birth. It has only a small set of reflection and biological needs. And the intent to kill can not have a priori. Even if he was aware of what was happening, his mother wouldn't kill anyone. Because it depends on her for 9 months and will depend for a very long time. In terms of feeding and psychologically. No one can protect a child as much as a mother with a maternal instinct.�
And imagine this court, where a baby is tried for the death of its mother. Nonsense. Because the child does not really put pressure on anything. It depends on the mother and the doctor. Often women know that childbirth can kill them. In Russia, they always insist on an abortion in this case. And correctly. A mother's life is more precious. But not everyone values their life so much and gives birth to their own harm. So the baby is not to blame for the mother's stupidity. Well, plus childbirth is an unpredictable process. And at any moment, something may not go according to plan. No one is insured.�
Or was it the murder of a child?
Is the birth of a person considered his murder, because as soon as a child is born, the aging mechanism starts? From the first second of life, any living being is doomed to perish. And with each passing second, we are approaching it. Slowly but surely. All the same, or they will die.�
And the question can be rephrased: if we give birth to a person who from the first second begins to approach death and inevitably dies, can we blame him for his slow death, because if the child would never have been born, he would never have died.�
From a legal point of view, certainly not. But on the moral side, it depends on your beliefs. The question is interesting and philosophical. But it is from a series of jokes about toxic water that “100% of people who drank water died” or “what if oxygen is a weak poison that slowly kills us”�
Maybe it's true, maybe both water and oxygen cause us to age. But without these two things we can not live at all. Just like we can't live without being born. And if we stop killing, stop giving birth, then the human population will die out and everything will lose its meaning
From a philosophical point of view, your decision is the decision that it should be born. It is up to him to decide that he must also die. That is, he chooses whether to grow old and die or remain young forever.
But of course! You've doomed the poor guy to lose his baby teeth, get chickenpox, get a few flus, and eventually die sooner or later.
And now how to live with this understanding?)))
It seems to me that the philosophy of the question is not understood here. I didn't get the gist of it myself at first.
First you need to understand, by killing whom?�
If the mother died due to childbirth, through the fault of the child, then the child can be considered a murderer. But no one will judge him. This is absurd. The child does not understand anything at the time of birth. It has only a small set of reflection and biological needs. And the intent to kill can not have a priori. Even if he was aware of what was happening, his mother wouldn't kill anyone. Because it depends on her for 9 months and will depend for a very long time. In terms of feeding and psychologically. No one can protect a child as much as a mother with a maternal instinct.�
And imagine this court, where a baby is tried for the death of its mother. Nonsense. Because the child does not really put pressure on anything. It depends on the mother and the doctor. Often women know that childbirth can kill them. In Russia, they always insist on an abortion in this case. And correctly. A mother's life is more precious. But not everyone values their life so much and gives birth to their own harm. So the baby is not to blame for the mother's stupidity. Well, plus childbirth is an unpredictable process. And at any moment, something may not go according to plan. No one is insured.�
Or was it the murder of a child?
Is the birth of a person considered his murder, because as soon as a child is born, the aging mechanism starts? From the first second of life, any living being is doomed to perish. And with each passing second, we are approaching it. Slowly but surely. All the same, or they will die.�
And the question can be rephrased: if we give birth to a person who from the first second begins to approach death and inevitably dies, can we blame him for his slow death, because if the child would never have been born, he would never have died.�
From a legal point of view, certainly not. But on the moral side, it depends on your beliefs. The question is interesting and philosophical. But it is from a series of jokes about toxic water that “100% of people who drank water died” or “what if oxygen is a weak poison that slowly kills us”�
Maybe it's true, maybe both water and oxygen cause us to age. But without these two things we can not live at all. Just like we can't live without being born. And if we stop killing, stop giving birth, then the human population will die out and everything will lose its meaning
From a philosophical point of view, your decision is the decision that it should be born. It is up to him to decide that he must also die. That is, he chooses whether to grow old and die or remain young forever.