I have many times consented to have sex and not consented to carry a pregnancy to term. I have taken measures to make sure the latter doesn’t happen as a precaution, such as using condoms and being on birth control. Consent means to give permission, which is within the control of the woman in this scenario. So no, you cannot assume consent anymore than you can assume somebody consented to get an STD. If having sex implied consent to pregnancy, then you’re opening a can of worms for men to have the right to intentionally impregnate a woman every time they have sex because they have already “consented” to pregnancy.
You tried to give an emotionally charged example by using drunk driving earlier, but the same applies to sober, responsible driving undertaken with reasonable precautions. There are 4.8 million medically consulted injuries and 40k deaths from car accidents a year. One cannot engage in driving without knowing that there is inherent risk to yourself and others, despite your best intentions and precautions. Let’s say a deer runs into the road, you swerve and hit a motorcyclist. They are critically injured. By your logic, because you knew there is an unavoidable risk of injury to others by driving a car, you have consented to give use of your body now that the risk becomes realized. For example, their skin grafts can be taken from you. Blood transfusions come from you. Transplants come from you. You consented to this by engaging in a behavior that has some risk of an undesired outcome.
The reality is, everything has risk because we are animals that can die many ways. If engaging is behaviors that have risk (all behaviors, however reasonable) means you give up the right to self determination, it’s a race to the bottom. Going to the grocery store has a reasonable risk of getting a communicable disease, if you catch and transmit that disease, you now have to relinquish bodily autonomy in favor of the other persons help. If you logically think through your proposal, it just doesn’t make sense.