What if, prior to the nineteenth century, female celibacy had been a crime?

It's no coincidence that feminism as we know it began in the nineteenth century in Europe and America. Because, it wasn't until this time that child mortality started dropping from its spectacularly high levels of around 80%, throughout human history up until this time. While it's actually rather hard to believe, prior to the nineteenth century, only one in four or five children actually managed to survive to the age of twenty-one. By the late nineteenth century, more hygienic child-birthing procedures -- doctors using antiseptic on their hands -- were starting to cut child mortality substantially. In addition, steamships and steam trains were making healthier food available more regularly to the population as a whole, in Europe and America, further cutting child mortality, and increasing overall life expectancy. Finally, by the mid-twentieth century, antibiotics and vaccines were largely eliminating the dangers from childhood diseases. So, by this time, actual child mortality had rapidly dropped from 80%, to near zero. So, effectively, prior to the nineteenth century, the very survival of the human species was constantly on a knife-edge, from one generation to the next, absolutely dependent on virtually all women producing and nurturing as many children as they possibly could. This largely explains the "subordination" of women in traditional societies. It also explains the horror of male homosexuality in traditional societies, because if men didn't devote all their time and efforts to impregnating as many women as they possibly could, the human species might be in danger of extinction. It also explains the taboo against "unclean" women, in process of menstruating, and hence, incapable temporarily of conceiving children -- men shouldn't waste their time and effort having sex with them, at times of menstruation. These facts had rather wide ranging implications for society. So, theologian St. Thomas Aquinas made homosexuality the most severe of carnal sins, while rape was a relatively minor one, in the thirteenth century. So, homosexuality and abortion were capital criminal offences in most societies. Nevertheless, I'm not aware of any single society in human history which has made the simple fact of a woman choosing not to have children, through celibacy, a crime. This, despite the fact, that such a choice by a mere third of females, prior to the nineteenth century, would have meant the utter extinction of the human species within a few generations. Effectively, women choosing not to have children, choosing to be celibate was, by far, the most serious threat to the survival of humanity up to a couple of centuries ago, yet, one can find no real evidence of any serious social controls of an explicit type, regarding this behavior. This seems rather odd, don't you think? Now, don't misunderstand me, here. I'm sure there was considerable social pressure for women to have children. And, indeed, there were quasi-legal procedures such as the burning of young sorceresses at the stake for "bewitching" men, while failing to have children with them, and the ritual human sacrifice of virgin girls who had the foolishness to remain virgins a little too long. And, of course, we have the instinctive biological male sanction against women choosing celibacy -- rape. And, most traditional societies have had rather lax penalties against rape for unmarried girls and women -- the girls were "asking for it", "why were they out alone?", "why didn't they just settle down, and have a family?", that kind of thing. But, wouldn't it have been simpler, and more civilized, simply to say, in a courtroom and/or civil chamber, by law, in writing, "Hey, girls, girls, girls, if you don't have your eight, ten or twelve kids, why, our whole community is finished! We're done! We ain't here any more, forever! Why if only a third of you decide to not have kids, why, the whole society ceases to exist. So, why don't you all pick yourself out a nice guy when you're eighteen, or so? And, if you don't, why we're going to have to put you in the stocks once a week, until you do. Nothing personal, this is just a social necessity." I believe, the reason this was never done, was along the lines that information is power. That, if women were regularly informed of their absolute power over society, they might well have used it. And, even women were afraid of that! Thoughts?