You're right, it does. It highlights the strange special status sex is given, and the awful consequences caused by that special status.
I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway.
Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
It highlights that people bring up arguments like this to shame people out of having sex, but refuse to consider that something as simple as comprehensive sex education would contribute greatly to solving the aforementioned potential problem.
I don't think I don't deserve them tbh, I was being super glib/lazy. I interpreted the parent as implying that was going to be "job done" for getting a child prepared and it struck me as odd.
Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
Its not one or the other, you preach the virtues of using both. I did that (condom and pill) with all my sexual partners before I got married and it wasn't uncommon among my peer group from what I saw.
Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.
