NASA Puts A Stop To Space Romance

electro-donkey writes "According to a New Scientist article, romantic entanglements among astronauts could derail long-haul space trips. A top-level NASA panel has decided, though it could alleviate boredom, space sex could cause trouble too. On a mission to Mars, for example, which would take up to 30 months, sexual conflict or infidelity could lead to a 'breakdown in crew functioning'."

Comments

Re:Instead of sex...

[Short Circuit]

...last post!

Re:Although I haven't read TFA...

[PsiPsiStar]

It used to be that abortions were legal in the U.S. up until 'quickening' or fetal movement. Now groups want to say that life begins before an embryo has even implanted or differentaited.

RU-486 results in 1 death in 200,000 making it twice as safe as penicillian. Those people who have suffered the worst side effects were those who took it despite being having contra-indicating factors warning against its use.
(from religioustolerance.org)

RU-486 still has complications in 8-10% of cases requiring surgical follow up, which I think is what you're alluding to.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/>

But I thought these folks were ALL ABOUT women's health!

I used to think doctors were all about health too, but most of them don't seem to care.
I'm saying this as a guy who has met a fair number of doctors who were simply unable or unwilling to do simple diagnostic work. Apathy and negligence are problems throughout the medical profession. The number of unreported incidences of malpractice is high. A significant accident occurs in one out of three major operations, if memory serves. I could be off on this, I don't have time to google it. All I know is that I've had one friend injected with so much insulin that they went into a coma, and my mom had her teeth filed down by the dentist when she specifically asked for them not to be.

Vaginal administration of RU-486 isn't contra-indicated, however. It's an off-label use, which is different. You haven't really supported the notion that it should be banned (though from what I've googled on the NIH research, oral administration is far more effective.), or even supported the notion that that was in fact the cause of these women dying.

Bacterial infections are treatable, though some strains of S. Aureus are now resistant even to vancomycin, and starting to become resistant to the various fluroquinolones. But considering that they don't know the facts related to these women's cases, and that the infections weren't treated properly, it would seem that these women simply weren't receiving proper medical care to begin with in terms of follow up visits. That, rather than a pill, was the cause of their death. The "human at conception" camp opposes RU-486 for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting women's health.

When it comes down to it, abortion is still far safer than pregnancy. There were 399 deaths from pregnancy in 2001 alone.

Up until the late 1800s, 'quickening' or the time when fetal movements could be felt, was the point of no return for a pregnancy. The notion that 'life has always begun at conception' according to religious doctrine is simply not true. If you ask someone to show you a biblical passage that makes the claim that life begins at conception, I promise you they'll show you a passage that says somthing else entirely. Without fail. The notion that "people are fully human at conception" is literally the belief that undifferentiated cells are people.

But when even Bill Frist tried to argue that it should be slightly later, he was essentially shouted down by his own party who didn't want to hear it.