But Ken, who also didn’t consider the ramifications, is off the hook?
A 5 to 8% failure rate didn’t seem like that big a risk? That’s a somewhat better rate of failure than playing Russian roulette with a loaded six-shooter, but still. . .
He’s not refusing to take responsibility. He’s offered to take full responsibility in the only way he can imagine. After all, what’s an offer of marriage, a life-long commitment to you and the child, if it’s not taking responsibilty? What he’s not doing is offering to take responsibility in the way you would like for him to take responsibility.
I’m sorry. You’re in a shitty situation, but it’s not as simple as him refusing to take responsibility.
And I’ll point out how deeply ingrained culture is for Americans. You’re reacting exactly how most women of your age in America would act. 50 years ago, people in America would have gotten married in a similar circumstances.
Going after fathers of unwed children this strongly is a fairly recent movement in America, which probably followed the rise in divorces, and while it would be nice if all other cultures moved in step with America, that’s not realistic. I do sympathize with you, and I wish that Ken would have been more like an American, for the sake of your child, but I also am not completely comfortable with putting all the blame on his culture.
It would seem that it would be morely that cooperation with him would be preferable to blaming and fighting in the question to get whatever you can out of him, which would more likely be continued contact and not money or lasting emotional support.
The other problem you will likely run into is that Japanese women tend to be less understanding of children from previous relationships. Again, this comes from the fewer number of divorces and not having as many single people with children running around. Once he’s in another relationship, there will be less incentive for support.
I wish I had better news for you. 
Posts like this just depress me. This poor child, already disadvantaged, and not even born yet…
In my own culture there’s a taboo against imposing cruel and unusual punishments, a belief that vandalism is a relatively minor crime, and a view that first time offenders in non-violent crimes should be treated more lightly than other offenders. However, if I go to Singapore, get drunk, and vandalize some cars, my own culture notwithstanding, I’m still going to get caned. My offer to make things right as I would in my own culture, by paying restitution and serving a period of probation, will fall on deaf ears.
I got my undergrad degree in cultural anthropology and my grad degree in law, and deep I have a deep respect for both culture and the law. Respect for one doen’t necessarily translate to an excuse in the other, though. His offer to man up and do the right thing as he understands it by making an offer of marriage is admirable, but her refusal has absolutely zero bearing on his legal obligation to support his dependents in this country. I see fathers on a near daily basis who very fervently share his belief that her decision to raise the child on her own should absolve them of any responsibility, and while their belief may not be of deep cultural origin as in his case, theirs appears to be every bit as sincerely held. Neither matters. Courts here take obligations to the child so seriously that in many jurisdictions contracts like the one he demands she sign are completely unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
If he flees to his own country he is dodging that legal obligation, and if he does so while under a court order he’ll be amassing back child support that could prevent him from ever returning without being subject to some pretty massive civil and criminal penalties, and I do mean massive. Maybe it’s of no consequence if he never returns, but if he does, he’d better believe it will be waiting for him.
Come on now - that’s kind of low. We have no idea what resources she has - I raised my son as a single mother - and he ISN’T “disadvantaged”.
You prefer “differently vantaged”? Has a “special vantage”? 
Yes he is. It’s probably safe to say that we all are, in some ways or others.
Color me a bit confused on this issue. Apparently you DIDN"T want a child before. Neither did he. Now you do. He still doesn’t, but was willing to do the right thing. He made a very significant offer in marraige. He was offering “legitimacy” for the child, as well as a legal binding of your incomes etc. You refused and want to keep the kid. Frankly, he shouldn’t have any responsibility to the kid if he want’s to give up all rights. “Paycheck” papa’s are one of the worst phenomena in our society. There are a LOT of people willing to provide loving adoptive homes to healthy babies. Frankly, I find you selfish.
Acid Lamp - So you’re saying that a man should just be able to say “I don’t want a child” and opt out of all responsibility for the consequences of his actions? I agree that a father who only writes a check is a shame, but it’s better than a father who doesn’t even do that.
StG
It takes two to tango. Why should one woman’s wishes superscede those of her mate’s? If they didn’t wish for children, and they had an accident, and only she has a change of heart; it is isn’t fair to him. It effectively states that a man’s rights are of less worth than the women’s. He offered to share in the full responsibility and she refused him.
This is an important point, to be sure, but the OP involves issues that aren’t quite this simple. I don’t think anyone has denied that, while in our country, he needs to respect our laws and, yes, even our culture. But the culture-centric arguments all have been along the lines of trying to explain why a man who does a specific thing would be thought an asshole in the U.S. but an honorable man in Japan. I’ts not as simple as saying “screw your culture.” In his mind, and according to everything he knows, he did take responsibility, and his offer was refused. I am absolutely certain that Ken is as frustrated and angry with **Carnivore ** as she is with him, and it’s important to understand why each party feels justified in feeling that way. An intellectual would be able to sympathize with both, but an American intellectual probably would empathize with our Carnivore.
Well said. I just wanted to speak some to the counterpoint, that the fulfillment of his cultural obligations aren’t the end of the matter.
There’s a third party you’re leaving out, though: the child. Why do the man’s wishes override the best interest of the child?
(Perhaps we are hijacking this thread a bit and ought to start another…)
You mean the child who is unwanted, and unplanned by the father; and WAS unwanted until it occured by the mother? The best intrest of that child would be for it to be given up to a home that desperately wants a child and is prepared to care for it; rather than staying with a young, unmarried single mother who only wants a financial contribution from the father. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an “all or none” approach to this issue. Either the father is allowed to be involved, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails; or If the mother doesn’t want him around, can opt out.
I would like to see the case made for the father that wants his unplanned child brought to term that the mother wishes an abortion performed.
Just throwing a vote in with Acid Lamp. Both the OP and Ken seem to have been having sex based on an understanding that they were having sex for the sake of intimacy, not to have children. Suddenly saying, “Well I do want you to have gotten me preggers!” against this general agreement is rather shady.
In the modern world sex does not equate to “we need to worry about babies.” There’s not really any room to argue that people shouldn’t have sex if they’re not willing to buck up and pay for a love-child for the next 18 years. Unless you’ve decided together to have a child, and unless you live in a country where abortion is illegal, the basic assumption should be that no one wants nor intends to look after a baby as a result of some diddling about.
You could argue that that’s a bad and evil thing, but that’s still what you should expect for better or worse.
What makes you think the father isn’t allowed to be involved? The father is allowed to be involved with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, he just can’t force the mother to marry him as part of the package. He gets a child and gets to be a father, he just doesn’t automatically get a wife. Even if he did, what’s to stop them from divorcing in six months when their incompatabilities come to a head? Can he opt out of fatherhood at any time if she files for divorce as well?
Many mothers (and more than a few custodial fathers) would gladly give up child support payments made by the other parent just to get rid of them and not have to deal with them anymore, but the other parent has rights over the child whether they like it or not. They’re there, set in stone. Typically, both parents have rights and duties over the child: the duties of care, upbringing, discipline, and support, the power to consent to marriage, military service, and medical treatment, the right to custody and access, etc. etc. That falls upon both parents, and neither parent can unilaterally give it up or deprive the other parent of them. They’re completely independent of marital status.
As to the good home part, I’m not certain I understand. Are you advocating that a child be involuntarily removed from a biological mother and placed in foster care and put up for adoption if the father wants to opt out of fatherhood?
I just want to say he was HAPPY about the pregnancy when he first learned of it. Like I stated before we both had a period of time where we were making plans. Having a little celebration dinner, deciding names, thinking about the future, going to Ikea and looking at furniture, etc. We were even making plans for him to move closer to me so he could be more involved with the pregnancy and birth. It was only when I told him I didn’t want to marry him that he decided he didn’t want the child. And he told me specifically because he was Japanese and in Japan it was marriage or nothing.
I did not just want money from him. I knew he’d have to go back to Japan eventually if we didn’t marry. What I wanted from him was to stay in contact with me and the child. To be as involved as possible without being present. Maybe even come out once a year to visit the baby. But no, he wouldn’t even agree to that. Then and only then was when I started thinking about child support. I quickly realized that wasn’t possible. Yes I’m angry and upset with him. I think most people would be in my situation. But it will pass with time. I’ll be the one blessed with raising our child and maybe one day soon he’ll realize what he lost.
And yet, despite the miracles of modern medicine, unintended babies keep getting born somehow. What do we do about them once they’re here? Who should the responsibilities lie on after they’re born?
I feel that this is a fundamental problem with our system. A parent ought to be able to opt out before the birth of the child. I’m not suggesting that someone be able to pop in and out a whim, but a binding agreement of full and total disassociation. If I get a Surprise I should have just as much say as the mother as to the keeping of the baby as she should. If you make the It’s her body, it’s her choice argument, then I should have the right to legally diassociate myself from the whole situation. After all, I voted to abort.
Please don’t think I was merely accusing you of being money-hungry. This DOES read like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want him to be involved, but not with you. You want the freedom to raise your child and see other men etc… Since it’s not going your way, you’ll try to make him pay then. Seems a poor reflection on you to me.