Co sleeping .Our reasonableness has its limits

Why do so many new parents think its OK to have a baby sleeping in their beds.? 
because they think its natural -" to listen to and not ignore the child " . Are natural arguments very deep or consistent or just used for convenience or in desperation - it is natural for a child to bash another child?  Why sit on anger when its quite natural ?
In the absence of a clear philosophy of considered resistance and faith ( eg to believe in hard edge cliffs you can't see but others have seen ) ,stoicism, determinism  and giving in become the norm . This state of mental incompleteness is not good or complete because tension is necessary for sustainable growth and development .

One hopes, as a realist, that irrationality or incomplete arguments are exposed .Because we all treasure our own reasoning we OFTEN ONLY  see the reality of incomplete logic in anothers failures and when the connection with their ideas is clear.  
Therefore
, I am positive most existing parents would be very pleased to hear the judge state the facts this week;  incomplete arguments have been exposed. Irushinality (copyright EA 18 july 2012)
Over half the SID deaths are cosleeping related, so its extremely risky for the baby to be there in bed  .Experience and objectivity are clear. Reality can and is not being promoted in some so called health and welfare magazines  who promote this new idea  .Why ? Are we truly rational creatures?The idea that we can trust magazines and organisation s who say they care to really care also gets a much needed shakeup - too easy to offer advice .everyone likes to put their bit in .

Why does idealism from time to time prevent us from accepting the real risks of life . As 95% of parents only want the best for their children and know that kids can go astray , anything that might prevent the alienation of parents and children is likely to be given consideration.Need doesn't necessarily drive solutions as some who promote progressive and evolutionary imperatives insist.

Sound moral drives have  therefore great power .We don't yet know a way to ensure our children make good choices , so naturally we would like to know if we could do more ; Previous generations of westerners had it easy ;"the problem is innate and related to their God given freedom " .
This generation have another idea;" If we think its not innate our focus will be on changing the environment" .Fine but how far do you go ? give them the best environment What cotton wool with candies ?
We may feel its only right to experiment   But like any moral choices just How you implement them is controversial . Surely its our preferenec for simple choices that can drive us to chose 1 line of reasoning rather than another . and a simple environmental reason seems to have the greatest clout  for many .
What if the issue is so complex  that no simple  line of reasoning can be followed . Are the environmenatl justifications just a bit too easy  So why do some advocates bring up stuff about " 2 cave" families ,it being unnatural . To call something "Unatural". ( like bottlefeeding)in 2012 is clearly to call a curse on the idea.Interestingly these natural comes first ideas are not new and have become prominent if not permamnet in previuos generations .  "The environment "now has too much weight attached to it ( cf heredity) .
 We can only keep the balance between nature and nurture here, as we have done before by ensuring we don't put nurture in a dominating position ?