| Jay520 said:
1. It is the same thing. Having sex (or selling the cake), he knows there is a 1% chance of his condom failing (or selling a bad cake) since no condom is guaranteed to be perfect; therefore, he knows that there is a 1% that there will be undesired consequences (same for the baker). If he still chooses to have sex (sell the cake), then he should still be responsible for the very unlikely consequences. That was my point. I don't think the knowledge of the partner/customer matters as it relates to the responsibility of the male/baker. 2. I don't see what the existence or lack of a transaction this has to do with the baker/male being responsible for the consequences of their actions. 3. Assume the baker did not manufacturer the cake, so it can be equivalent. The baker would still be responsible for whatever happens. So it doesn’t really matter if the male/baker manufactured the condom/cake. I don't see why the responsibility is different. In the end, none of the above really matters since it looks like you agree with me. You state "if both sexual partners know that the condom could break, and both choose to go ahead with the sexual activity, then the responsibility should be exactly the same as if both chose to have sexual activity without a condom." However, everyone knows (or should know) that a condom could break; none are perfect. So I assume you must agree with the fact responsibility from protected sex (under any sex) is the same as the responsibility from unprotected sex. This was my point. |
As I pointed out, the primary difference is that the partner is also aware of the 1% chance of failure, and thus is equally culpable for deciding to go through with the act (assuming no rape takes place).
Let me use the analogy to make my point - if the baker knowingly sells a cake that has a 1% chance of causing severe illness, without first informing the customer, then the baker is wholly liable for the result, and assumes all responsibility for that result, should it occur. However, if the baker informs the customer of the risks, and the customer willingly goes through with the purchase, the baker is no longer responsible - the customer is the one that made the decision as to whether or not to buy it, and thus the burden lies with the customer.
In the case of sex, both partners are capable of doing things to prevent certain results. Responsibility depends on the exact circumstances. For instance (a heterosexual instance), if the guy wears a condom, the girl is not on the pill, the condom breaks, and the guy pushes for the girl to get the morning-after pill, and the girl refuses (and refuses abortion later, too), then the responsibility typically lies solely on the girl, as the guy did everything in his power to prevent the pregnancy, while the girl did nothing to prevent it. On the other hand, the guy may be even more culpable than the girl in other circumstances. It's easy to get caught up in dichotomous thinking... but things aren't that simple. Responsibility depends on the details, not the probabilities.
