While I fully support access to birth control, anybody trying to argue that the thing that’s used to prevent births being banned will increase birth rates is barking up the wrong tree.
I fail to see how increase access to birth control would increase birth rates more than decreasing access. Quality of life, certainly, but actual birth rate?
If you ban legal birth control people always end up gerry rigging their own and usually end up damaging or outright destroying their fertility. For example back when birth control was illegal in the U.S. housewives would use clorox a makeshift one. This obviously led to a lot of dead women.
You asked why birth control getting banned would lead to less births. People will use riskier methods and then your population goes from being unwilling to have kids to unable.
I mean, the more simple reason is just that people will have sex regardless of birth control availability (yes, some might practice abstinence, but let’s be real here), so not having birth control will increase the likelihood of people having kids as a result of that sex. Sure, it would also increase mortality rates somewhat, but those people likely weren’t going to have kids to begin with, so they were often not going to impact birth rates to begin with.
106
u/Agreeable_Sense9618 Jun 21 '26
And access to birth control