Check. Yes, that would be nice. But, having "satisfying and safe sex life" is NOT an inherent "right" of a member of the human race, however much people may not like hearing that.

PRINCIPLE: NO PERSON HAS AN INHERENT RIGHT TO ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY.

In fact, we say that we only hold our basic rights if they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

The basic rights in the American traditional are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and the subtext there is so long as the exercise of these for any one person does not obstruct the 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' of any other person."

Sex naturally requires another person's body, and thus cannot possibly be one of our inalienable rights, since we have no inherent "right" to another's body.

Proper (Christian) Marriage establishes a kind of "right" to another's body: a "right" established by mutual and entire gift of self. The man and the woman, in marriage, give themselves entirely to each other (necessary but repetitive subtext: in Christ): their hearts, their minds, their bodies - their future lives, and in a way, their souls. (To give their souls completely would be (A) a metaphysical impossibility, and (B) a grave offence against God methinks, but more thoughts on that later...)

Marvelously, this principle also shows why abortion is wrong. That baby inside is not the mother's body - science, which deals purely with the facts and objective, sensory evidence, will tell you that. And morality tells you the principle written above.