It is not my job to be a brood mare. And I don't want my role in society to be marginalized because my primary role is being a brood mare. (Also, even without modern technology, we can probably keep infant mortality down far below historical norms just with modern knowledge - even low tech sterile conditions do a lot.) Having control over when to have children broadly gives women control of their lives.
That of course depends on the actual scenario, but what you consider your job to be will probably be a luxury that society can ill afford. After the dust has settled, we'll be in a situation where we'll be fighting tooth and nail to avoid complete population collapse. We'll need scores of young people to work us out of that hole, and if you're of child bearing age, you'll bear those children. It's after all a unique skill that very few people can be put to do. (I'd for example be pretty crap at it, as I fall for the simplest and most obvious of reasons, I'm a guy.)
That's not to say that you'll be forced at gun (or club) point, but rather that society will bring down quite a bit of weight on you to "make the right decision". So for example, expect contraception to be made illegal rather than made unavailable, and anybody that interferes with a pregnancy to hang from the nearest tree. (Of course, it'd be the smart thing to do anyway, as we'll spend quite a bit of resources on the pregnant and mothers of young, so "Why would she want to do that anyway?")
After a generation or two (if we make it that far) that'll be the norm, standard, and "the way it always was", like Rob Slade puts it; "Don't go out dear, it's not good for the baby." will very rapidly morph into "Don't go out". And remember this is a good thing. It's what we want to happen, because the alternative is much, much worse.
Now, again, to say exactly how things will play out is difficult, because it depends on the scenario. If the scenario is nuclear Armageddon many bright people spent careers thinking about the consequences, and some of this information is now in the open (see e.g. Rob Slades short introduction: "Nuclear warfare 101-103" http://www.giantbomb.com/fallo... , esp. 103 deals with the aftermath. Another good book about the possible aftermath of an EMP strike is "One Second after." It is based on the US Govt. EMP commission report (and has a wikipedia page). It deals mainly with the immediate aftermath, so it doesn't really reach the "we need you to have kids"-part, but is still a somewhat realistic assessment of what society could be like. (It for example contains a long scene where refugees are triaged according to useful skill. If you're not a doctor or electrical power engineer, take a hike.)
But again. The takeaway is that what you consider your job to be will probably come so low down on the list of things to consider that it won't even make the first chapter. And that in a time when people will be far pressed to make it to the end of the first page.
But don't let that discourage you. My assigned role in such a scenario is realistically to die as quietly, and quickly as possible, so as to not use any resources best spent on the deserving. Preferably without putting any undue stress on them, mental or otherwise. I think a heroic but ultimately futile act to save the needing is my preferred way to go, but even that isn't my call. You get at least to have kids (with great loss of control of your life, but hey, nobody is going to be "in control" of much of anything), I don't get a life at all... (And if you're past the age where child bearing/rearing is a realistic occupation for you, I'll even let you lead me in the charge unto the breech. How's that for an offer you'd probably do best not to refuse?
So on a more upbeat note, lets agree that civilisation is a good thing and make our damnedest to try and preserve it, rather than go stocking up on soap just yet.