Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

In a thread about SIDS?

Someone said this: "Population control through natural means is a wonderful thing. " I think it is appalling. You agree or disagree with that statement?


Asked by Anonymous at 11:34 AM on Feb. 3, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (98)
  • D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G thing to say. Even if you THINK it, that should be something that never leaves the recesses of your mind. It could be extremely hurtful, and is completely unnecessary.

    The poster must not be educated in the ways of caring for others.

    Answer by DusterMommy at 11:49 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • I think only a sick skank would say that. Obviously someone who has never lost a baby to SIDS. Maybe she'll get cancer or something and think it's a wonderful thing.

    Answer by GothicMommy3 at 11:39 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • While it is not phrased well, I get the intent of the statement. Were I a mom with a baby who died of SIDS, I would be hurt. But the pragmatic side of me knows that the earth cannot sustain everyone born here. It just can't. And in nature, not everyone survives. It's very sad but it is true.

    While I get the poster's statement, a thread about SIDS was not the appropriate place to post such. There is such a thing as allow for the potentially fragile feelings of others in a SIDS post.

    Well, everywhere but CM.......

    Answer by LiliM at 11:39 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • potentially fragile feelings of others

    Really?  Was what that person said in ANY way good.  I just dont see how.  Fragile feelings my rear end. lets talk common human decency.  Maybe we should call the Haiti earthquake "popu;ation control" and not worry about it! JUST as sick!


    Answer by momof030404 at 11:44 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • not that i necessarily agree with exactly what she is saying... but did you know that in other parts of the world the government controls population?? sometimes it is a necessity that the population remains under control, natural population control may be better for everyone as a whole vs. government being involved. i do feel bad for those that have gone through a situation like that and wouldnt wish it upon anyone. however, there has been research done that low seratonin levels have been linked to SIDS. now knowing this maybe we will see a decrease in SIDS.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:44 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • What LiliM said.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:44 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • LMAO.

    Answer by Yoshi_Yoshi at 11:46 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • While I do agree with survival of the fittest, I believe that that comment showed a lack of understanding, tact and empathy. A death is always something to grieve, even for the thought of what that life could have become.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:48 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • Ummm, a baby dying of SIDS is not population control, it is a TRAGEDY. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an evil b*tch.

    Answer by BridgetC140 at 11:49 AM on Feb. 3, 2010

  • Whether you agree with it or not, population control, natural selection, survival of the fittest or whatever term you wish to use has been around since the beginning of time. If you belive in evolution, then you believe the statement the OP commented on. Natrual disasters, disease outbreaks, death in general is a means by which the earth is able to maintain balance. When the balance is off, such as when the world is overpopulated, bad things tend to happen. When we as humans start to fight against these things, something stronger must happen. First AIDS, then super AIDS. Germs and bacteria, now we have ones that are reslient to our antibotics. It's not just a coincidence. Balance must be maintained.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:49 AM on Feb. 3, 2010