> It could be intentional that a government, organization or pharmaceutical / chemical company is knowingly sterilizing / making it more difficult to conceive. This could either be through a willingness to look the other way (i.e. a side effect) or intentional (North Korea for instance may do some sabotage or government is intentionally pushing population reduction)
For others reading, remember that no evidence is being provided for this hypothesis.
> For instance, the US government gives funding to Planned Parenthood which provides birth control, abortions, and other drugs to support people looking to not have children. This organization advertises and gives a lot of birth control out for free or low fees. That's an overt intentional act of reducing population growth.
You've provided no basis for this claim that Planned Parenthood provides birth control, abortions, or other drugs as part of a US program to intentionally reduce population growth.
> You've provided no basis for this claim that Planned Parenthood provides birth control, abortions, or other drugs as part of a US program to intentionally reduce population growth.
Any funding of birth control or abortions by definition will slow population growth.
Further and specifically in regard to planned parenthood
> Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose to align herself with ideas and organizations that were ableist and white supremacist. In 1926, she spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) at a rally in New Jersey to promote birth control methods. Sanger endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often against their will.
What you said was that this was a US program to intentionally reduce population growth. I see no basis for that claim. Feel free to retract that claim or provide actual evidence.
You can certainly suggest that a result of family planning activities such as birth control, condoms, abortion, or abstinence result in slower or no population growth, but I do not see this as the primary purpose of these tools/activities, which is to enable people to decide when they are ready to have children.
This is the important point from your link, which naturally you took out a single quote out of context either out of malice and bad intentions, or because you simply didn't read further. I'll assume the latter.
> Planned Parenthood believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status, and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and decide, without coercion or judgement, whether and when to have children.
> Margaret Sanger’s racism and belief in eugenics are in direct opposition to Planned Parenthood’s mission. Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Further, Planned Parenthood denounces the history and legacy of anti-Blackness in gynecology and the reproductive rights movement, and the mistreatment that continues against Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in this country.
The fact that they call out their history (which somehow still lacks being a US program) and are explicit about what they stand for and what they don't stand for is admirable and honest. You cherry-picking a quote isn't.
> What you said was that this was a US program to intentionally reduce population growth. I see no basis for that claim. Feel free to retract that claim or provide actual evidence.
I think you have to not read what I’m writing to make that argument.
The US government is funding an organization which has the explicit goal of reducing the number of children women have. By definition that is reducing population growth.
I pointed out it was founded with that purpose. But even if you look at what it does today: provide birth control and abortions (among other services). Again, by definition that will reduce population growth.
Might be for a good reason or a reason you agree with. Might be admirable, I personally don’t have any moral position. I’m just stating as a fact by funding that organization the US is funding the reduction in population growth through birth control and abortion services
For others reading, remember that no evidence is being provided for this hypothesis.
> For instance, the US government gives funding to Planned Parenthood which provides birth control, abortions, and other drugs to support people looking to not have children. This organization advertises and gives a lot of birth control out for free or low fees. That's an overt intentional act of reducing population growth.
You've provided no basis for this claim that Planned Parenthood provides birth control, abortions, or other drugs as part of a US program to intentionally reduce population growth.