He doesn't have to "ascribe" consequences to sex. Pregnancy is the natural and often inevitable result if you don't take precautions to prevent it. He's saying that people who have sex without protection shouldn't be free from the natural consequence of that sex, which is pregnancy. It doesn't strike me as a controversial stance at all. If you want to have sex for fun, either take precautions to prevent pregnancy or be prepared to deal with the natural result.If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it? For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure?
Remember that @tabzer 's post was made in reply to the organ donation analogy. I don't think he's accusing women of deliberately having sex without protection so they can get abortions, because as anyone who knows anything about abortions is aware... they're not something you get "for fun".