One of the things I say is from an evolutionary point of view: probably the ideal rich environment for a baby includes more mud, livestock, and relatives than most of us could tolerate nowadays.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Nature favors those organisms which leave the environment in better shape for their progeny to survive.
I believe it's in the best interests of a child to be in a stable environment.
How come life is so important in the nine months before birth, but then we sort of forget about the importance, we're not worried about whether that baby lives in poverty once he or she is born.
Research has shown that a barren environment is much more damaging to baby animals than it is to adult animals. It does not hurt the adult animals the same way it damages babies.
It is the nature of babies to be in bliss.
Remember that disadvantage is less about income than environment. The best metrics of child poverty aren't monetary, but rather how often a child is read to or hugged.
Some people aren't great with babies, or they're not great with a smaller child - it's not that they're bad mothers.
Babies and young children are like the research and development division of the human species, and we grown-ups are production and marketing.
Children are our most valuable natural resource.
Our baby is safe, and it's just a house.
No opposing quotes found.