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.

Better just give the customer two cakes for the price of one to be safe.

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.

That's actually not a bad idea. Double wrap if you want to avoid pregnancy and your chances go down from 1% to 0.01%.

I enjoyed reading your op. But I need to know what it is meant to be analogous to before making any type proper statement.

The statement, "Should probability invalidate responsibility?" can have different answers depending on the context.

speak up ;)

EDIT: Actually I see it has been discussed quite thoroughly. Nevermind.

Nice. I laughed at this post much louder than I probably should have.

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.

i agree that both partners are equally responsible if they both consent to sex.

1. Okay, I see your point here. Although I'm not sure if the law agrees with you. I'm not sure about selling potentially unsafe food, even if you inform the customers. I would imagine that's illegal. As for the morality, I agree that the owner is zero percent responsible if the customer is informed.

2. Even under that scenario, the man should still be responsible (along with the woman) because he still chose to have sex. He did not do everything in his power to prevent pregnancy - that would require not having sex at all. As for the varying degrees of their responsibility, yes, that would be dependent upon the details. But, under any consensual circumstances, both parties must ultimately face some accountability.

And this is why we came up with the idea of insurance and food regulations for bakeries, cuisines, and fast food restaurants.