How interesting it is the many ways plants and animals react to stressful situations. Magnolia trees will bloom in drought conditions, construction site conditions with cement dust sinking into every timbery pore. They will bloom white blossoms although the leaves are shrunken and sparse and the naked skeleton of the tree sticks out like some famine victim.
Now females of the most complex primate species, they, will lose the ability to have children in quite stressful situations. What is the difference? The flow of life goes through each species, and a certain struggle to survive persists in both these examples. The tree blooms in an almost conscious attempt to leave seeds for another tree to grow. All of the tree's energy must be going to that seed. The woman, in constrast, must be around herself to nurse and protect a child for more than a decade after the child is born. Therefore in sub survival situations it makes no sense for the whole species if a woman has a child, and she then dies. A magnolia seed drops on the ground and may start a new tree. An human infant must have surrounding adults to live.
The contrasting reactions, having seeds or not having seeds, work for the same goal. The tree blooms to carry on a whole species, and the woman does not bloom to carry on the species. In our example, it is better to protect the life of the woman by having her not conceive, in sub survivial conditions, since her odds of surviving herself are improved by her not having a child in these rough conditions: her survival enlarges the chances of later conception in perhaps better conditions. Thus her not being fertile in famine conditions protects the whole species speaking of species survival as a whole.
Be fruitful, for the species at the physical level --- and at other levels also, an interesting admonition.