Woman being unclean during menstrual cycle is part of Abrahamic religions. But I guess this comes from the bigger problem of "sex" being wrong unless it constitutes "breeding".
Actually some of those regulations are more akin to health regulations. Granted, they didn't understand disease at the time, but they were able to find things associated with it to avoid, like contact with blood.
The only Abrahamic religion that views sex as only for breeding would be Catholicism (and maybe a few other smaller sects). Judaism, Protestants and Muslims all believe sex is a normal healthy thing.
You may be reading it wrong. Sex is viewed by the Catholic Church as an act of love between man and wife, that can't be dissociated from breeding. It is not only for breeding, but it must be conducive to breeding.
It is laid out in very expressive form, if a bit long, in the Humanae Vitae Encyclical Letter by Pope Paul VI. If you don't wish to read the whole text, lookup points 12 and 14.
You may also be reading it wrong. I suggest you look up paragraph 11, which directly contradicts your "must be conducive to breeding" claim:
"It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile."
Insofar as your claim "can't be dissociated from breeding" can be constructed as a correct claim, it requires understanding that to mean it cannot generally be actively sought to be dissociated from breeding, but even that is incompletely accurate as (per paragraph 16) "If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained."
(The position laid in Humanae Vitae has often been criticized for being somewhat incoherent, which isn't really all that surprising given its history. See, e.g., [1])
That is not really an idea found in the Tanakh. I mean, the writers are unanimously in favor of breeding, but I don't think any of them suggest that sex is only for that purpose.
