1. I disagree. "once a child is actually brought into the world then that child is the most important individual
to the person who made the decision to deliver the child.". If that child is born, that child is not the most important thing to a person in Cambodia nor is his responsibility to take care of the child.
2. I disagree. I call it unethical, if and only if the make had no power to make the decision. And given any unethical situation, we shall do our best to prevent it.
3. Nope, the mother (not the child, the father or a person in Cambodia) did get a say (i.e. have the power to make that decision - the decision to have the child) and thus all the responsibility falls on her (and not on the child, the father or a person in Cambodia). Power to make a decision and responsibility are directly proportional. A very well known cartoon phrased it very well: "With great power comes with responsibility". Now, this is fair and solves the financial abortion situation. Clean and simple. Such is the power of logic.
4. Nor should it be the burden of any person who did not have a say in the child's delivery (have the power to make that decision - the decision to have the child). "Any person" includes the male as well.
5. No one talked about perfect worlds. We just want to prevent unethical situations. If the mother cannot afford to have something, she should not have it. Simples. This applies to houses, titles and offspring as well. Assessing whether someone is financially capable of supporting a child (at least during the child's first year) is feasible. You just have to crunch the data from that person's account. And if she can't, she should be willing to give up the child. Medical access should be provided to deliver a painless abortion and psychological support given. In this scenario, everybody got to have a choice and no one was given an unethical treatment. You might say "but what if she refuses to undergo the abortion". Well, you just refuse medical assistance for non-abortion purposes.
6. I disagree. "Ensuring that all babies are provided with financially robust parents is the top priority."
-- You might want to check this. For your own amusement.
On the other hand, if the male sexes the female without the intention of reproduction (i.e. not reproductive sex) yet she gets pregnant and he does not wish to be the acting father of the potential child (and the female wishes to keep the potential baby), he should be able to give up his acting fatherhood as it was not his choice to have the baby but the female's. Having this male pay for a potential child he never wished to have is forcing consequences of a decision he never had the power to make (due to the 'my body my choice' philosophy). Forcing the consequences of a decision on someone who never had the power to make when such forcing can be avoided, is unethical. There is no instance of this type of consequence-forcing that we would consider ethical. I can give examples if you want them.