....wait like, on a per capita basis, or just by gross numbers? because there's only like 1 million firefighters in the US, which is about 1/5 of how many people get pregnant every year. so if it's the latter that's still not a nice number, but it's not so shocking. since there's 5x as many people in the pool, and they'd pull ahead if they had more than 1/5th as much excess mortality.
especially considering that firefighters are a population selected for their almost violent good health, while pregnancy is much more equally distributed over the population, so the baseline rate of death from unrelated causes is going to be higher in that group already.
(actually, if this is people with a job as a firefighter that number is even smaller, because over 2/3rds of all US firefighters are volunteers, while people who do admin for professional fire companies and do not go into fire are still considered pro firefighters in the census.)
hm, thinking about this: a firefighting career is expected to last years. they have a lot of tasks that aren't 'running into burning buildings,' after all. if the same percentage of them die on the job every nine months as pregnant people die of problems in any way exacerbated or brought about by pregnancy, that would be a really significant rate of attrition by the standards we apply to job safety.
which is a bit damning lmao.
like. firefighters are not in fact expected to go into the fire unless 1) there's reason to believe someone is alive inside and 2) the building seems stable enough to escape with the rescuee. so in the worst scenarios where their odds are bad even with their gear, they usually. don't.
because anything else would be inhumane and a waste of life and training, and you wouldn't be able to hire more firefighters to replace the dead ones if you did demand that.
now, in a world where you can choose to be pregnant or not, by means other than total sexual abstinence, most women only spend a couple years of their entire lives pregnant, even if they want to be mothers.
which means that the overall danger of 'being a firefighter' as a lifestyle can reasonably be expected to be higher than that of 'being a mother,' even if the pregnancy/burning house danger ratio were to be skewed in the direction of pregnancy. because you maintain that averaged danger stat continually the whole time you have that job, instead of just for a bit early on.
however. in a world without reliable birth control and abortion access, a career as a wife (or just an existence as a sexually active person with operational gestation equipment) is also going to maintain the pregnancy danger stats a majority of the time. in fact, they get worse as time goes by, as the body is overtaxed.
at which point it no longer seems unlikely that pregnancy is per-capita more dangerous than fighting fires.
which is pretty bad, actually, for something it's often just taken for granted you'll do if you can.