Society should remember that sex is a method of procreation, the natural result of intercourse is pregnancy.
The idea that sex is for procreation is one of the least examined ideas in this thread. Coincidentally, it is an idea that the religions often preach. My view is that procreation is only one component of intercourse, and it is downstream of two other components. The natural result of sex is actually: enjoyment and intimacy. Only sometimes does it result in pregnancy.
Let's look at the evidence shall we? Firstly, the fertility window in humans is at most around 6 days, but in the view of some experts it is much narrower, basically the day of ovulation - day 10-14 of the menstrual cycle. Which means that sex as a means of procreation has similar starting odds to Russian roulette, where five of six chambers are empty. And that's before you factor in the likelihood of successful germination of the egg (insert Russian roulette puns about 'firing blanks'
). If sex were solely or mainly about procreation, we would have evolved differently - to be more fertile.
So, the question is - what
else is going on? What happens, biologically, when we have sex? The main answer is: good sex produces endorphins such as dopamine and
oxytocin ('the love hormone'). So sex is partly, and I'd argue
primarily, about social bonding, or less pompously, love.
Now, arguably, the first two components of sex (enjoyment and intimacy) increase the chance of a loving relationships that are able to provide long-term care for offspring, so you could say that they are related to the idea of sex being primarily about reproduction. I'd disagree as post-menopausal sex, etc doesn't align with this interpretation. But even if you insist on the primacy of reproduction, what I find hard to accept is the argument that, when sex has not succeeded in bonding a couple via enjoyment and intimacy, that the female (and the female alone) should bear the consequences of the less common result of sex: pregnancy.
When our biology has the aim of equipping a child with optimal circumstances for its upbringing, why would we want to force children into the world in sub-optimal circumstances? Shouldn't we trust that the mother has her and her potential offspring's best interests at heart?