You're confusing the source of that -- the typical relationship between the two is a belief in personal responsibility.

For anyone with a stoic, scientific understanding there is a point where both beings become equal during gestation. This probably occurs somewhere around 20 weeks. However, <2% of abortions are had after this time. It is a necessary evil that nobody should feel responsible for unless they are directly involved (even then, the best choice out of two bad options).

You're arguing something completely orthogonal to what I said.

Yeah, caring about life until after gestation is just pro-birth; thanks for confirming that.

Infants don't have personal responsibility, so cutting programs that benefits children hurts them more than the parents.

No, it's pro-personal responsibility and pro not killing children.

The same thing goes for benefits programs -- nobody wants kids to be starving in the streets, but we would rather that people exercise personal responsibility in taking care of their own kids rather than expecting the rest of us to pay for their care.

Those positions are not opposed, and there's a lot of nuance in the whole welfare debate, it's not all or nothing.

So you're willing to let kids starve to prove a point to someone?