2) I don't want to be forced to have a child, because I don't want to pay for it -> Every deadbeat father in existence, NOT OK
"Giving birth will throw myself and my other children into poverty" is the typical socioeconomic argument recognized by feminists. This cannot be equated to the situation of "deadbeat dads." The assumption with "deadbeat dads" is that they are fine with their partners giving birth nine months after their thirty seconds' pleasurable investment, but have no intent of supporting the result financially. In this story, the "deadbeat dad" is capable of supporting the mother and her baby, but prefers not to, and there is ultimately little consequence to him whether his lover gives birth or not.
This is qualitatively different from not wanting to give birth, because one outcome for that parent will be very different, from a personal perspective, than the other. There is no such thing as little consequence to a person who is enduring the rigors of pregnancy or labor.
I have literally heard fathers trying to weasel out of child support saying exactly what you are saying. It's a slippery slope.
A father with two children in his care just doesn't want to pay for some other kid not in his care.
(what he actually does with the money...well I dunno, I just know what he was
saying)
I should also point out, I never said anything about a parent who already has children.
Also, I could care less what feminists believe are valid arguments. I don't defer my thinking to other people. If they have good arguments, then they are good arguments. Conversely, if their arguments are lousy, then their arguments are lousy.