| YouKnow said: If this truly was his point, then the analogy is inaccurate. You took necessary precaution to avoid impregnating the female in the form of the condom. The baker takes no precautions at all. He simply spews his seed and hopes for the best. |
I say it's the precaution they took was the same, based purely on the statistics of their circumstances.
- When the man chooses to have sex with a condom, there is a 1% chance of undesired consequences.
- When the baker sells the cake, there is a 1% chance of undesired consequences.
So, the precaution they took - based on the probability of undesired consequences - were of equal effectiveness.
You might argue that the baker did not take enough precaution. You might say that he should have acted in a way where there was zero chance of undesired consequences - not selling the cake. But the same could be said for the man: he should have acted in a way where there was zero chance of undesired consequences - not having sex.
The fact that both chose a decision that allowed similar possibility of undesired consequences, even though they both could have eliminated the possibility of undesired consequences, means the responsibility should be the same. One could make the argument that both took insufficient precaution.
