You describe the proper procedure in the case of emergent danger to the mother: "to perform a surgical procedure to save the life of the mother, knowing that the child will die in the process." Under Texas law, at least, this would be defined as an abortion, a non-elective abortion.
And you are right that in the later stage of pregnancy, the child would not necessarily die if delivered.
In fact, statistically, after 15 weeks, it's safer to carry the child than to undergo intentional interventional abortion.
It's important that we make it clear that we would not demand sacrifice of her life that the mother doesn't feel prepared to make.
... and all I am trying to say is that the difference between your position and "I want an abortion because it'd be inconvenient for me to have a baby" is a matter of degree. Both cases require sacrifice on the part of the mother (granted one a immeasurably more than the other) but I thought the whole gist of the pro-life movement was that the sacrifice or inconvenience is irrelevant; the child has a right to life, period.