Part 1: "People who start a war cannot be its victims"

Part 2: "A determined genocide can prevent reproduction by various means"

The statement combines a legally flawed premise about war culpability with a legally accurate definition of a specific act of genocide.

This first part of the statement is legally and morally incorrect under international law.

The Separation of Laws: International law separates jus ad bellum (the reasons for starting a war) from jus in bello (how a war is conducted).

Protection of Civilians: Even if a government or an armed group starts a conflict, the civilian population—including children, the elderly, and non-combatants—never loses its right to protection.

Victimhood: Civilians who suffer harm, displacement, or death in a war are victims of the conflict, regardless of the political or military actions of their leaders. Collective punishment of a population for the actions of a militant group violates international humanitarian law.

This second part of the statement is legally accurate according to the UN Genocide Convention of 1948.

Legal Definition: Article II(d) of the Genocide Convention explicitly defines "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" as an act of genocide.

Methods: This can include destroying healthcare systems, blocking access to maternal care, causing severe malnutrition among pregnant women, or destroying the conditions necessary for family life.

Intent: To prove this aspect of genocide legally, international courts require evidence of a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

Conclusion

The idea that starting a conflict strips a population of victim status contradicts the foundational rules of international law, which protect non-combatants under all circumstances. Meanwhile, the recognition that preventing reproduction constitutes a genocidal act aligns directly with established international legal frameworks used to judge atrocities during war.