Let's look at some of the possibilities. Looks like there are only four.
1. Both adults of a married couple want offspring.
2. Neither adult wants offspring.
3. The male wants offspring while the female doesn't.
4. The female wants offspring while the male doesn't.
(Yes, I know there are variants, such as in Case 1 where the adults do not want offspring NOW, but do later. But each variant of a given Case can probably be declared equivalent to one of the other Cases -- in the variant just described, Case 2 would apply NOW, but not later.)
Case 1 offends nobody, unless perhaps the couple is too poor to be able to afford offspring without imposing upon others.
Case 2 offends the anti-abortionists, IF they find a need to enforce their power of choice over mindless biology.
Cases 3 & 4 really should be resolved before marriage occurs. Consequences deriving from the conflict are absolutely ancient and classic. I know of one modern Case 3 where the female consented to be the "brood mare" of the male if given an automobile. The story I was told is that she eventually acquired 4 cars that way. I do not know if this was a pre-nuptual arrangement. If it was, FINE. If the female presented her conditions after marriage, then likely even other females might say she was in the wrong, for not communicating something of such significance prior to the marriage.
Case 4 is special in that the female has the power to get her way regardless of what the male wants. This also is a matter of great significance. One of the ironic things about human relationships is that humans usually have to work AWAY from the relationship, to earn enough to survive. When either works more than the other (or when non-work-hours don't overlap), the relationship is strained. Consider the case when an extra mouth-to-feed is added. MORE work away from the relationship is required (likely by the male, since the female usually does most child-rearing), to earn enough for three instead of two to survive! COMBINE Case 4 with the extra work, and no wonder so many marriages collapse! Leaving the disgruntled male with child-support, of course. My advice to any guy who seeks Case 2 (until READY for Case 1) -- but encounters Case 4 -- is this: Do a Ben Franklin, and find a grateful older female who CAN'T saddle you with kids.
Once upon a time I imagined a cultural scheme in which young adults were EXPECTED to seek out significantly-older partners. Here are some ARBITRARY age-ranges, just to present the notion clearly:
1-20: Growth and general learning
20-40: Partner up with the 40-60 group. According to studies, young males and older females are near peak sex drive. Meanwhile, older males have the financial security to offer younger females, who in turn are at the best age for having healthy offspring.
40-60: RePartner with the 20-40 group, as described. The older females will generally not want any more offspring, while the younger males need the chance to acquire financial security. ALSO they can be properly trained in the Right Ways to Treat Females. Meanwhile, older males can apply what they learned, gently, to the younger females. Diminishing sex drive and TIME for relationship helps ease the child-rearing burden, and the presence of a solid father-figure is considered to be a Good Thing, also.
60+: RePartner with another of this group. This is only logical, if you are either sex and have reached 60, while your partner has reached 40 and is ready to repartner with a 20-year-old.
Every culture finds the customs of other cultures strange. As long as they WORK, it shouldn't be possible to say that one culture is superior to another. This one, I think, is workable...PROVIDED humans can be a little less possessive of their partners, than is often the case these days. If possible, such anti-selfishness training should be part of the 1-20 learning environment.
