No, I mean as a means of survival. It has only been in the last 400 or so years that the human population has exploded to the point it is now, relatively a short period of time when you look at the existence of man as a whole. That said, humankind does not need to have sex to reproduce. Barring a meteor/asteroid disaster or some disease that wipes out 99% or so of humankind, humankind does not have to fear extinction. Thus, sex can be used as "recreation" and for the joy of it, not simply for having kids. Why? I find the argument that giving up the child for adoption is almost hypocrisy if it comes hand-in-hand with being against abortion. If the person needs to face the "consequence" of having a kid, they should face the consequence of raising it. Which leads me back to some people are not fit or able to raise kids. Sure, adopted kids grow up to be productive members of society. And some don't. I would rather take the time to make sure people are ready to have kids and be prepared to tip the scales in the productive side than let it go to chance. Religion is a whole 'nother mess. And I didn't argue your BTW 'cause Ferret and the Mrs. already included that in the article.