Condommmms

[MushookieMan]

I was wondering, since the sole purpose of a condom is to prevent a child from being concieved; if you had a child when you were using a condom then you should definitely be able to win money in a lawsuit, because it's a big thing, bigger than breaking your leg for example. I mean a child is a living investment you have to feed etc.

But somehow, I think that condom companies probably made a provision against that, like a user agreement for condoms. I bet it says on the package that if their product fails you assume all liability. That's just wrong.

What do you think? Is there or isn't there? Is it right?

Also; family guy. That's how they bought their house.

[speakerlight]

May be you shouldn't be to rough?

[GiantDouche]

There is no liability. Every time you ride the bus you don't sign a waiver that absolves the bus driver if you die. The condom company is responsible.

[Timmy]

Everyone knows the possibility of pregnancy is there when they engage in sex. The condoms limit the chance of it happening, but it is really only your fault if the sex results in pregnancy.

So no - I don't think it is wrong that the condom companies are not held responsible for your dumb decisions. Everyone knows condoms aren't 100% effective - they say that right on the box.

If you take the risk and have sex, then you are the only one at fault if you knock a girl up.

[Timmy]

At 2/12/09 06:48 PM, Ejit wrote: They always say like 99.9% effective or something.

Actually, condoms are only about 84% effective. It's a scary thought that roughly 2/10 times, pregnancy occurs.

[MushookieMan]

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote: So no - I don't think it is wrong that the condom companies are not held responsible for your dumb decisions.

What dumb decision? Using their product? You only use condoms for contraception, and if they are flawed, like having a pinhole, then the company should be liable!

So I am just wondering who would win if somebody sued.

[ZombieKangaroo]

At 2/12/09 06:57 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote: So no - I don't think it is wrong that the condom companies are not held responsible for your dumb decisions.

What dumb decision? Using their product? You only use condoms for contraception, and if they are flawed, like having a pinhole, then the company should be liable!

So I am just wondering who would win if somebody sued.

They're to prevent STDs too dipstick, preventing pregnancy isn't their only purpose.

[Elios]

At 2/12/09 06:57 PM, MushookieMan wrote: So I am just wondering who would win if somebody sued.

I think you're wondering if YOU could win a lawsuit.

Dude, condoms a have the "99.9% effective" for a reason; preventing lawsuits.

You: My girlfriend is preggers! Your product is defective.
Company: You had sex in the first place.
You: Lose.

[MushookieMan]

At 2/12/09 07:01 PM, ZombieKangaroo wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:57 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote: So no - I don't think it is wrong that the condom companies are not held responsible for your dumb decisions.

What dumb decision? Using their product? You only use condoms for contraception, and if they are flawed, like having a pinhole, then the company should be liable!

So I am just wondering who would win if somebody sued.

They're to prevent STDs too dipstick, preventing pregnancy isn't their only purpose.

Fuck, I knew some idiot like you was going to say that. NO. Their main and only reliable purpose is to prevent pregnancy. Idiot.

[MushookieMan]

At 2/12/09 07:05 PM, Elios wrote: I think you're wondering if YOU could win a lawsuit.

No. You lose

Dude, condoms a have the "99.9% effective" for a reason; preventing lawsuits.

And you know they have this guarantee for a fact?

You: My girlfriend is preggers! Your product is defective.
Company: You had sex in the first place.
You: Lose.

No, the whole purpose of the product is to prevent pregnancy. They couldn't make you lose the lawsuit by saying you had sex. That's retarded.

[Timmy]

At 2/12/09 06:54 PM, Ejit wrote: Stupidity = overwhelming.

Allow me to break this down as simply as possible - when you chose to use the condom company's product, you are accepting a certain amount of risk involved. On every package, it contains the warning that the condom is not 100% effective, and this serves as notice to the consumer that the product can contain defects.

However, the manufacturing/design defects which appear in the occasional condom and render it ineffective are clearly not able to serve as grounds for a lawsuit, since condom companies are currently NOT being sued by 10% of their customers (or whatever the percentage of ineffectiveness is for condom use). It is true that many times, simple putting a notice on an inherently faulty item does not stand up in court (you can't just slap a warning label on an exploding lawnmower and claim that the notice given to consumers precludes lawsuits), but this is not one of those cases - clearly the notice has proven to be sufficient to deny any litigation against condom companies.

[NoPurchaseNecessary]

Trollin trollin trollin, though they're disapprovin', keep them noobies flamin, rawhide!

[doomdoom]

Their should totaly be some way for you to sue the company because if one of those puppies breaks they should assume that they sold a deffective product.

[ZombieKangaroo]

At 2/12/09 07:07 PM, MushookieMan wrote: Fuck, I knew some idiot like you was going to say that. NO. Their main and only reliable purpose is to prevent pregnancy. Idiot.

Once again you stupid prick, you're wrong. If a guy had an STD and he jizzed into the condom rather than the chick, would she get it? Depending on the STD...NO!

Now fuck off and stop talking about shit you don't actually understand despite the many protests you'll make that you do and how stupid you believe everybody else is.

[ouchichi]

At 2/12/09 07:07 PM, MushookieMan wrote: Their main and only reliable purpose is to prevent pregnancy. Idiot.

Nope, you're the idiot.

When it comes to sex, there are many different methods of stopping pregnancy. The pill, hormonal injections, the implant, diaphragms, hell even the withdrawal method, but they don't stop the transfer of STDs. Condoms however are designed so that no contact comes between the penis and the vagina and prevents transfer of bodily fluids, thus preventing transfer of STDs. The fact that no bodily fluids are exchanged handily meads no pregnancy.

Why the fuck do you think they're handed out in african countries with HIV epidemics? They're not trying to stop reproduction that's for sure.

[WhiteAfrican]

You're Going to be a daddy!

[ZombieKangaroo]

At 2/12/09 07:27 PM, ZombieKangaroo wrote:

At 2/12/09 7:22 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

Okay, so would you have sex with someone that you KNEW had STD's, as long as you were wearing a condom? I know I wouldn't. Somehow I think you wouldn't either. You can still get it from external sores on their body. "Jizz" isn't the only way to get an STD idiot. I was just saying condoms aren't a reliable prevention technique for STD's, only pregnancy.

You realise that a lot of people don't realise they have STDs themselves before passing them on? Exchange of bodily fluids are how most STDs are transferred and condoms being a physical barrier prevent this.

Now fuck off and accept that you're wrong.

It looks like somebody is having a tantrum at home because he thinks STDs can't be prevented by condoms.

[Conspiracy3]

That's what abortions are for.

[NoobKillsNoobs]

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote:

Everyone knows condoms aren't 100% effective - they say that right on the box.

well fuck i guess my seamen is like fucking ghost cum and can go through walls.

[MushookieMan]

At 2/12/09 07:27 PM, ZombieKangaroo wrote: It looks like somebody is having a tantrum at home because he thinks STDs can't be prevented by condoms.

Way to not actually read what I said and then act like you did.

[ZombieKangaroo]

At 2/12/09 06:47 PM, MushookieMan wrote: I was wondering, since the sole purpose of a condom is to prevent a child from being concieved

I didn't quite catch that Lou.

[MushookieMan]

At 2/12/09 07:27 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: That's what abortions are for.

Yeah sure.

[NoobKillsNoobs]

At 2/12/09 07:28 PM, NoobKillsNoobs wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote:

Everyone knows condoms aren't 100% effective - they say that right on the box.

well fuck i guess my seamen is like fucking ghost cum and can go through walls.

its not like condoms purposely have ventalation holes in them so your cock can breath after a work out. the only time they shouln't be 100% ok is when you are having dry sex or beach sex or masturbating with sandpaper.

[ouchichi]

At 2/12/09 07:28 PM, NoobKillsNoobs wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote:

Everyone knows condoms aren't 100% effective - they say that right on the box.

well fuck i guess my seamen is like fucking ghost cum and can go through walls.

Condoms can break.

The virgins need to shut the fuck up and listen to the people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Timmy]

At 2/12/09 07:19 PM, Ejit wrote:

At 2/12/09 07:13 PM, Timmy wrote: Allow me to break this down as simply as possible

HOW ABOUT, ER, MAYBE MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACEPTION IN INTERCOURSE?

Very good point!

Except that has nothing to do with anything.

hahaha

[Twinsabre]

At 2/12/09 07:07 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

At 2/12/09 07:01 PM, ZombieKangaroo wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:57 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:53 PM, Timmy wrote:

Fuck, I knew some idiot like you was going to say that. NO. Their main and only reliable purpose is to prevent pregnancy. Idiot.

Protip: Think before posting.

Condoms are for both STD protection AND contraception.That's the sole purpose of most condom advertisements these days. Jackass.

[GiantDouche]

There is no liability. Every time you ride the bus you don't sign a waiver that absolves the bus driver if you die. The condom company is responsible.

[Sheizenhammer]

At 2/12/09 07:07 PM, MushookieMan wrote: Fuck, I knew some idiot like you was going to say that. NO. Their main and only reliable purpose is to prevent pregnancy. Idiot.

Wrong.

As for the rest of it: No.

To file a successful lawsuit against a condom manufacturer, you'd have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) all of the following:

-You were not aware, from all of your school education on the matter, that condoms were not 100% effective at stopping pregnancies (no contraceptive measure, besides abstinence, is).
-You were not having sex under an obvious misconception regarding their effectiveness (i.e. the box provided no warnings/disclaimers, which it always does).
-You had a very good (i.e. medical) reason for not aborting the child, or giving it up for adoption once born ("religious beliefs" is rarely an admissable reason for court cases involving abortions).
-Should you have yet to make a decision on the aforementioned fate of the child, you know that there is irreversible damage done to your life, regardless (loss of spouse/friends/job etc.).
-You can put a monetary value on the child's life (otherwise, why exactly are you sueing them?).
-The defect in the condom was down to the manufacturer alone, and not anything done to them by you, your partner, a malicious third party, the shopkeeper whose store you bought them from, or the wholesale distributors who the shopkeeper bought them from (or any combination of those).

That last one's where it usually falls apart, since there have been many more reported cases of improper storage (leading to degradation of the condoms) and malicious tampering with condoms by third parties (ex-girlfriends, housemates etc.) than there have been of systematic failures with machinery or quality control on the manufacturer's behalf. Outside of the factory, they have no control over what happens to their products, so they cannot be held responsible for failures of them as a result.

[Valjylmyr]

The most common cause of a broken condom is often the consumer's fault. You're supposed to press down on the resovior before you use it so the air doesn't make it break.

[Chonabalistic]

Interesting