How many women are so pro-life that they would actually give their own life to save their unborn child's life?
I don't really think being pro-life and being willing to die to save an unborn child's life are as related as you think they are. First of all, abortions happen in the first trimester. Dying to save an unborn child's life would have to happen in the third trimester as it would not be possible for a mother to die in the first trimester and have a baby that could survive. This detail is huge, because hormonally there can be a very intense bonding process that happens between the first and third trimesters.
It's very hard to explain if you have never experienced it and in fact not all pregnant women do. Even among women who do, it might be different for each pregnancy.
For me personally, during the end of my first pregnancy, I knew I would probably choose do die for my unborn child. It wasn't a logical feeling - it was a visceral, instinctual urge that I had virtually no control over. In fact, for my entire life, I would have told you that such a choice was ludicrous.. but pregnancy and childbirth can take over your body in unprecedented ways. Luckily making such a choice is a highly unlikely scenario. If the mom dies during childbirth, the baby probably has no chance either. It would be a negligibly rare situation where the mother dying would save her unborn child. Additionally I am pro-choice, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how I felt during pregnancy.
If I were to become pregnant again, I doubt I would feel the same, because I think my urge to be around to protect my son would overpower any pregnancy urges I had to protect an unborn child.
It's interesting to see that the two existing answers are from men, both solemnly averring that women would die for their unborn child. On the contrary, at least from what I've observed, the bonding process that begins in pregnancy is sufficient in most cases to protect the fetus from external harm, but usually the fierce bond that means you'd give your life for your child develops after the child is born.
I doubt that statistics exist to answer your question, since what people say they would do is not always what they actually choose when the moment comes. However, it's important to note that most pro-lifers believe an exception should be made to save the life of the mother. It is rare indeed for a person to believe that women ought to die if necessary in order to save their unborn child.
I am not a pro-lifer, but I am hardly unusual in believing that the life of the mother should be preserved if at all possible.
Or how about the woman who knows that she can just about eke out enough to keep herself fed, and if she had a baby, with the resultant loss of pay, both she and the baby would be homeless?
Ir the woman with one child who can barely afford to feed that child, who knows that another child would cause both children to slowly starve to death?
Or how about a woman who just doesn't want to be pregnant? The punishment for sex isn't pregnancy, but only if you're female.
Many women want the children they're going to have, even if they're unexpected - but not every woman who's pregnant wants to be. (Birth control, a sure sign that the woman didn't want to get pregnant, fails. And in some cases, like my 51 year old neighbor, she thought she didn't have to worry any more. Surprise!)
So let's leave it up to the woman and her doctor, until we develop an artificial womb.
This is the type of data you won't get from any reputable source. Because it is based on a hypothetical scenario, and people can be very bullshitty about things that only exists in a possible (but not probable) future.
My personal guess? Not many.
Sure some women would do this, but it is not natural. We have this very primitive drive in our brains to keep ourselves alive. Very few people can turn away from this and reason to block it, to trade one's life for another. Specially in the case that this "another" is not even born yet.
It makes very little sense for Nature and Evolution to dispense of a fully grown and fertile specimen in favor of an unborn possibile one.
I consider that to be completely ridiculous.
If a woman has cancer and turns out to be pregnant, she should have an abortion and have treatment and then try again.
Why on earth would you put a child on the world who will be motherless from the start? Even worse when there are already children!
Why on earth would a woman put herself through pregnancy and then die and never ever enjoy the fruits of that effort? Just so husband can have the loss of his wife AND the care of a newborn baby. Yeah, that is such a wonderful idea ^ ^
No good can come from such an idiotic decision.