In many cases it is less supporting abstinence than supporting it for MINORS. That is not solely about oppressive or even repressive mores (thought it often involves them, too) hence laws against it virtually everywhere, even in quite sexually liberated countries. The definition of "minor" varies by locale, and there is often some latitude when both (or however many) partners are close to the same age, but, generally speaking, sex with or without contraception is discouraged in minors. Ironically, the few demographics that ARE sexually oppressed in many respects tend to most indulge sex with minors—provided it is duly sanctioned by the family of all girls involved, and the local religious authority. Yet even in those cases the result is de jure majority, though it often amounts to little more than transfer of ownership.

Put simply, the greatest moral imperative for abstinence-only birth control is often just preventing minors "being taken advantage of." Parents and nations understandably oppose raping children, either by force or manipulation.

That is without considering things like parents worrying fourteen year olds who ignore their stodgy and paranoid fears about their children having sex are just as apt to ignore stodgy paranoid fears about not using birth control. Likewise many boys who can talk a girl out of her panties can talk themselves out of a condom as easily (i.e. a boy who can "take advantage of a girl" often needs no birth control to do it.)

There are other concerns that have little or nothing to do with sexual oppression (oppression? Truly?) I am setting aside Implanon because

1) I try to avoid drugs on the market <10 years (i.e. during the final/first large scale human trial) because of things like

2) "The manufacturer advises 'Expect your menstrual periods to be irregular and unpredictable throughout the time you are using IMPLANON™'. It is not known whether Implanon changes a woman's risk for breast cancer" and

3) this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12117299

On the one hand, it has been on the market just over 10 years in the UK; on the other hand, well, perfect=typical use...? Not so much.

I would move to Depo-Provera instead, which has been around about twice as long, but a TON of groups in various countries oppose it, and most are womens health groups. Apparently, endometrial cancer had NEVER been diagnosed in rhesus monkeys—prior to Depo-Provera trials. http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1985/02/problems-us.html Moving on....

NuvaRing does not look too bad based on a little preliminary digging just now, and it will have been on the market 10 years come July, with a typical annual failure rate of 8%. The "perfect" failure rate is only about 1%, but "perfect" abstinence has a failure rate of about 0.000000001%, and thus obviously superior by that metric (by nine orders of magnitude. ) There are about a million teen pregnancies per year in the US; ignoring the fact many US teens already use some kind of birth control, putting them all on the US contraception proven safest and most effective would still leave about 80,000 teen pregnancies per year.

Even parents unconcerned about their children being pressured and/or physically forced into sex will still worry about falling into that unfortunate 8%. Even those with no moral objection to abortion usually realize it is often so traumatic many women also lacking moral objections nonetheless choose hysterectomy or tubal ligation instead. Those who DO object to abortion—but ONLY abortion, not contraception or premarital sex—usually object to their children sacrificing educations and/or good careers to raise a child, and do not want to raise their childrens children to prevent that. It raises the question of how many parents, in this age of accountability and personal responsibility, take their SONS to get condoms compared to how many take their DAUGHTERS to get the pill, patch or implant. Probably less than 20 years ago, thanks to the availability of DNA tests.

In short, many Pro Lifers also prefer abstinence-only sexual education for a host of reasons unrelated to their feelings on premarital sex (which US law also "opposes" when it involves anyone >21, and usually anyone >18.) I agree that is naïve and unrealistic, and they should recognize the need for a fall back position when "NO WIRE HANGERS OR PREMARITAL SEX EVER111" fails. However, there are far more causes than merely oppression, often not a cause at all.

In fact, I imagine it is seldom a cause. I know there are instances of parents locking up kids to prevent sex, and men forcing adult girlfriends/wifes to bear children (in an infamous recent case, a German man was discovered to have done BOTH for decades) but I doubt there are 80,000 in the US. In other words, the number of Americans denied contraception through genuine OPPRESSION is probably far less than those unintentionally pregnant when freely obtained contraception FAILS.

On a completely unrelated note, I have not forgotten I have owed you a response in another thread since a few weeks before Christmas, but between the holidays and an online class plus an in building class I got sidetracked. Since the thread is so old you should expect a NB some time reasonably soon, with apologies for delay.