[user104658]

You're deliberately making the situation as specific as possible to avoid even considering the possibility that actually having (or raising) a child might offer an experience (the direct experience of the parent-child bond) that would greatly bolster the ability to empathise with a parent who has lost a child. You should have a look at empathy vs sympathy and the subtle differences, IMO.

Consider; let's say a homosexual couple is attacked in the street and one person is badly beaten and hospitalised. Can any human with a sense of right and justice appreciate their situation and feel awful for them? Yes, of course! And most would. However is it not fair to say that another homosexual couple - with individuals who have NOT ever been physically attacked but have, nonetheless, experienced some general homophobia - probably has more ability to understand and empathise with their anger and frustration than a straight couple who has never been persecuted?

It doesn't mean that the straight couple think it's OK, that it doesn't make them feel sick to the core and furious, but it's still different. Would you dispute that? It also doesn't mean that ALL gay people are more sympathetic to the situation than ALL straight people - anyone can be an unsympathetic arsehole - but we're talking about general trends not specific individuals.

Parents (in general) can better understand the plight of another parent who has experienced the loss of a child, because of direct experience of the parental bond. Shared experience is a major component of empathy. There's literally nothing offensive or controversial about this statement. I still don't understand why it makes you angry.