As I said: the length and breadth of Christendom was pro-life. The Medieval institutional response to unwanted pregnancy was a revolving receptacle at an orphanage, not an abattoir.
How many wet nurses were there for abandoned pauper children, or even goats? The great majority died of starvation or disease. Then as now, people were ruled by their sex drive, and not by the consequences.
Some more charitable reflections:
A medieval family could easily suffer catastrophe: a failed harvest, the husband dead before the baby’s birth, the mother dead in childbirth, so that the baby’s poor chances in the orphanage were better, the family hoped, than outside it.
In a time when child mortality was 50% or more, the far higher death rates in the orphanages were not as shocking as they are to us. If earlier people had waited for life to be as safe and certain as we moderns consider proper for having children, then there would be no people at all.
Babies weren’t always sent to religious orphanages, and they weren’t abandoned only by families on the verge of starvation. Baby farms and angel makers were commercial enterprises lasting into the early nineteenth century and even middle class people sometimes dealt with their extra children that way, and wealthy people with their embarrassments.
A quarter century ago, I bought a book on child abandonment and exposure, whose title I cannot recall, and which is shelved according to some forgotten scheme, but it quoted an Classical Greek or Roman writer, that the Jews were the only people who did not expose their children.