The idea that you're putting forward might make sense in a fictional utopia but it ignores something that's very real.

I remember, when I was in high school, 32 years ago, learning that a way a woman could rebuff a man who wanted to have sex if she didn't was, "No, but I don't mind if you go and masturbate." A man who wants the experience of sex but can't have it can, if he wants to, see a sex worker, OR, he can go to an adult shop and buy an inflatable doll or, if he has a latex allergy, or doesn't want to spend the money, buy a pornographic magazine or DVD and masturbate.

A rapist, however, is NOT an involuntarily celibate man, who wants his moment of release, he wants power over a woman.

What you should have said, and what would make more sense, is that if pro-life women VOLUNTARILY have sex with pro-choice men, pro-life men are deprived, HOWEVER, consider this for a minute. A pro-choice man has sex with a pro-life woman and the condom breaks or whatever and the woman says, "I'm pregnant." She could well say to the man, "You will provide for myself and my child until my child reaches adulthood." So, he could have ended up, during the 1970s, pumping gasoline at a filling station and washing automobile windscreens for eight hours a day five and a half days a week to pay for diapers and food for a baby. But here's the thing, I would imagine that MANY pro-life men, if they forced a woman to have sex with them and the DPP said, "There's not enough evidence to lay charges," but a court said, "You will pay $50 a week maintenance for the next 18 years," would be thinking, "Oh, shit."