There are apparently some people in this country -- as evidenced by some of the readers of Salon who responded to this -- who believe the Abu Grahib scandal should simply go away; it was 2.5 years ago, the argument seems to go, and the U.S. has adequately dealt with the perpetrators of the torture that took place there. This is a depressing response, one belonging to people who would rather skim the surface of today's "current events" and then move on quickly to the next factoid that arises. I applaud Salon for practicing journalism that does more than regurgitate today's headlines. What separates a true news organization from the sensationalistic is the commitment to in-depth analysis of culturally and politically crucial stories. Abu Grahib is clearly that, and as new information about it arises it should be dealt with, not passed over as "old news."

Further, if people don't want to see the photos, then they needn't look. If some peoples have an aversion to information, that should not mean that no one gets to have access to it. Salon is free to print them, and readers are free to ignore them. That this basic argument even seems to be necessary is a sad commentary on the state of freedom of the press in this country.

Oh lord, with all the truly frightening limitations on reproductive freedom that are being introduced, is this really the right time to be having this conversation? But then, life is not so orderly that we can always choose when to discuss these things, so --

After reading many letters and giving this much thought (because it is interesting), it seems to me that a central issue in this case is one of notification and consent. Did the woman, when deciding whether or not to keep the baby, ever try to contact Dubay and ask him his opinion on the matter? She has apparently contacted him only after the child was born (though I don't know this for a fact); did she make any attempt to see what his feelings on having the child would be before she decided to keep the baby? If she made the decision without him and then comes to him out of the blue to demand payment after the child is born, is that fair?

But come to think of it, what if she did call him during the first trimester to ask his opinion? And what if he said "Oh god, please, I'm not ready to be a father! I'm only 25! We only dated a short time and I really don't think this is a good idea, so please don't have the baby." If that happened, well, we know what she did -- she had the baby anyway, knowing he didn't want to be a father. And, given my firm pro-choice beliefs that it is her body and her choice, she had every right to do this. But this is where it gets tough, because while I believe she has the ultimate right to choose what to do with her pregnancy, I also believe that she has the responsibility to live with her decision and care for the baby herself if the father was either not consulted or his wishes were disregarded.

However, the third possibility is that she did try to contact him and couldn't reach him, so she didn't know his wishes. If that's the case then I say tough luck, Mr. Dubay. Sex is a roll of the dice, and you lost. But it seems to me that a serious question this case raises is how much responsibility should a woman have to take for having a child if the father is not consulted in the decision, or if he is consulted but overruled.

And finally, regardless of whether the father was consulted in the decision to have the baby or not, what if this woman had her baby while knowing that she alone couldn't financially support the child? What if she had the child counting on the father to have to pay child support, and then the father gets hit by a bus (or, in this case, his lawsuit gets upheld)? Do we as a society want to promote the idea that a mother should be able to have a baby anytime she wants, regardless of her financial circumstances? Surely not, but would we be willing to punish this particular child, by not fully supporting it, to make this larger point?

This is where it gets really sticky, because the answer to me is clearly no, but this does not make the larger issue of parental responsibility and consent of both parents in having a child go away. Regardless of what some people think about this case being a nuisance or a distraction, I think it pretty clearly brings up some difficult and uncomfortable issues that are worth discussion.

... for consistently being one of the most reasoned (and reasonable) political analysts at Salon, or anywhere else, for that matter. Your position on this, as with most issues, is hard to argue with and extremely well-written. I just hope the Democrats read your pieces.

Mr. Manjoo, have you been watching Chris Matthews at all, or are you pretending to be naive when you ask "isn't Matthews supposed to be a reporter?" Of course he isn't. He's a Republican parrot, and everybody who's watched more than five minutes of him knows it. Being wide-eyed about Matthews -- gosh, he's being so unFAIR -- seems to be unnecessary to make your point that he's a hack.