But what I was originally going to say is that the language gets really fuzzy really fast. Like you could argue that sex education is a form of persuasion (though I wouldn't say coercion) and is easily argued as a form of population control. But I think many of us would call that beneficial. I'd say the same with free/cheap and easy access to forms of birth control. I'd say that enables more choice. But if we're talking about a counseling center that guilt trips someone into having the child or not having the child I'd call that coercion and I don't think that's right. But others would call that persuasion and education. So I think this gets messy really quick and a bit of expanding on the thought for clarification is needed.

I used the word "coercion" intentionally, although it's not exactly right.

Just as "coercion" implies "force or threatening," "persuasion" implies an "un-forced, freely-made choice." And that is a big part of what I'm questioning depending on particular circumstances.

At what level of deception or trickery or lies-of-omission, does the free-choice become the illusion-of-choice?

Hypothetically, in Xinjiang, if (and I get that this is an extremely unlikely "if" for obvious reasons) if we presume the actions are exactly the same (provide/offer/compel education), and the end results are exactly the same (results in suppressed Uighur birthrate, but educated),

Then does the government's good or bad intent matter?

What's the difference between these scenarios, if

1) China govt being honest and trying raise the QoL in Xinjiang to be equal with the rest of China, or

2) China govt lying, and using education as a pretense because of the low birthrate result that they desire?