The simplest answer is that the mortals of the millennium are the unbelievers who survive Christ's second coming, and their descendants. This position is advocated by Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology chapter 55.
However, it is important to recognize that this is a question which the Scripture does not answer in clear terms. Revelation 20 simply does not mention where the unbelievers come from at the end of the millennium, except that they are "at the ends of the earth" (v.8), but that clearly has no implications about who they are or how they relate to the people alive on earth at the parousia. Evidence for them being survivors among the unbelievers derives from two places:
First, as you rightly point out, both 1st Corinthians 15 and 1st Thessalonians 4 indicate that the believers both alive and dead will enter into the millennium with their resurrection, glorified bodies. Luke 20:35-36 indicates that the resurrected believers will neither die nor marry (which presumably implies they will not have children as well).
Secondly, note that Zechariah 14:16 indicates that there will be survivors of Armageddon, so the "all flesh" of Revelation 19:18 should be taken as the whole army assembled against the returning Jesus, and not as all people without exception. Therefore, not everyone who enters into the millennium will be believers going in with resurrection bodies.
Putting these two facts together, it seems natural to suppose that the rebels at the end of the millennium are descendants of the unbelievers who were left alive after the parousia. (Whether any of those unbelievers or their descendants will be saved is a difficult question to answer. Grudem believes that many will be saved (Systematic Theology p.1112), but I have heard other premillennialists disagree.)
On the final judgment
Note that the sheep-and-goats judgment of Matt. 25 is most naturally understood as referring to the same thing as the final judgment occuring at the end of the millennium (Rev.20:11-15). This can in part be seen from the destinies of the two groups in v.46: "[the wicked] will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The righteous going into eternal life would indicate that this group has glorified bodies at this time. The millennium, therefore, is condensed into verse 31.
I confess to not having read many dispensationalist sources that would advocate for distinguishing the two judgments. However, none of the discrepancies between Matt. 25 and Rev.20:11-15 alleged by Matt Waymeier in Amillennialism and the Age to Come ch.8 are contradictions if we take them as things mentioned in one passage but not the other, except for his assertion that the judgment of Matt.25 takes place on the earth while that of Rev.20 takes place after the earth has passed away. However, nothing like this is stated anywhere in Matt.25 nor in Matt.24:31 which he also cites for this opinion, neither does Rev.20 clearly indicate that the earth has already "passed away" (Rev.21:1) by the time the judgment occurs.
Addressing other opinions
Children of Millennial Believers
Irenaeus suggested that the believers who were still alive on the earth at the parousia will have children during the millennium (Against Heresies Book V chapter 35), however those believers will still be freed from death:
In the times of the kingdom, the righteous man who is upon the earth shall then forget to die. (Against Heresies V.36.2)
The difficulty with this point of view is that 1st Thess. 4 and 1st Cor. 15 indicate that the believers on the earth at the time of Christ's coming will be glorified at that time, so Irenaeus's view would require us to believe that this glorification does not indicate a transformation into the state that Jesus describes in Luke 20:35-36 of the marriage-less "equal to the angels", and thus the "resurrection" Jesus mentions here is not the same as the one Paul mentions in his epistles. (This difficulty also arises if we understand the resurrected believers as having children during the millennium, an argument I have heard from a modern-day premillennialist pastor.)
The Church vs. Israel
Dispensationalists believe that the Church and Israel are two different groups, and those Rapture verses in 1st Thess. 4 and 1st Corinthians 15 are referring only to the Church. The obvious issue with this is that neither of those passages indicate any distinction being made between the faithful among Gentiles and Jews.
In fact, the Scriptural support for making this distinction at all is pretty tenuous. Dispensationalists will usually cite Romans 11:25-32 to defend this position. However, this follows on the heels of the olive-tree metaphor of vv.11-24, which portrays Jewish and Gentile believers being part of a single olive tree. And the whole discussion of chapters 9-11 is prefaced with the declaration:
For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.
~ Romans 9:6-7
Elsewhere Paul clearly indicates that Christians are the children of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3-4) and that, though formerly excluded from citizenship of Israel, we are now included with no wall of separation (Eph. 2-3). This inclusion of Gentiles into Israel was prophesied in the OT (Psalm 87, Zech.2:11, Ezekiel 47:22-23, Isa. 14:1, 19:22-25, 56:3-8, Zeph. 3:9-10). In light of this the NT cites OT prophecies referring to Israel as applicable to the church in numerous places (1st Peter 2:25, Romans 9:25-26, 2nd Corinthains 6:2,6:16-18, Hebrews 8:8-12), and often uses Israel-ish language to talk about the Church (Luke 3:8, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:9, 2:11-12, 3:6, 4:3, Gal. 6:16, Rev. 3:9, Jam. 1:1, Col. 2:11, 1 Cor. 10:1). God has clearly indicated that inclusion in his covenant community is not a matter of genetics, nor was it in the OT times either (Gen. 17:12, Ruth 1:16, Josh. 8:33,35, Deut. 31:12, Exodus 12:42-49).
In short, given what the Scripture says, it is no wonder that the early church saw itself as the inheritor through Christ of the OT Israelite identity (Epistle of Barnabas 13-14, First Epistle of Clement 29-32). This perspective was, with slight variations, the only view on Israel-Church relations within Christian theology until the 19th century when Dispensationalism first appeared. (Note: This is not to say that the historical church disbelieved in a future ingathering of Jews. See for example Augustine, City of God book XX.29. Rather, they say this ingathering as an ingathering into the Church and not as a distinct people of God.)
Amillennialism
Another way to reconcile this difficulty is to rethink the meaning of the millennium itself. Amillennialists understand the millennium of Rev.20 as referring to the church age (City of God XX.7) which began with Christ's first coming, when he bound Satan in order to plunder his possessions (Mark 3:23-27), but he will be released near the end to make war on the Church (c.f. 2. Thess. 2:1-12), a time period corresponding to the Tribulation. The "first resurrection" refers to the passing from death to life (Eph. 2:1-7) which believers undergo at conversion (note also the parallel of "seated us with him in heavenly places" (Eph. 2:4) with "thrones" (Rev. 20:4)).
This view is often criticized for being too allegorical, especially in how amillennialists usually handle OT prophecies such as Zech. 14 and Isa. 65:17-25.
(Disclaimer: Amillennialism is my own view, and the difficulty of answering your question within a premillennialist perspective is one of the reasons why. If I have unfairly represented any premillennialist view please let me know.)
Fetuses and babies
This is another area where Scripture does not speak plainly. I have heard a premillennialist pastor suggest the same as your theory, that the millennial kingdom will be populated by the souls of aborted fetuses and those who died as infants.
The Bible does have a few things to say that are relevant to this issue, so we do have some foundation from which to draw inferences. We know that sin begins in the womb (Psalm 51:5) and therefore salvation of the unborn must be based on God's grace, not on their innocence. And we also know that God does apply grace to some unborn babies (Romans 9:11). The story of John the Baptist leaping for joy in the womb (Luke 1:41) implies that it is possible for someone to exhibit faith even before they are born.
I would say, on the basis of all these facts, that salvation works the same way for infants and small children as it does for adults: Those who are saved are saved by God's grace through the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8). The work of the Holy Spirit in salvation is not limited by the cognitive capacity of a person.
Regarding your question about pregnant women in the resurrection, I don't know of any passage that is relevant to this issue. While he doesn't comment directly on the issue, I think Augustine's discussion in City of God XXII.12-21 is relevant. We must remember God's omnipotence - God can surely, without difficulty, take the fetus out of the pregnant woman and give it a glorified, immortal body. It's a little strange to imagine, especially what might happen if the woman were saved and the infant not or vice-versa, but I see no great difficulty posed by this.
Of course, there are other possibilities. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm excited to find out!