1 / 18

Mediation of Induced Abortion in Humans by Kin Selection Criteria

Mediation of Induced Abortion in Humans by Kin Selection Criteria. By Alan Tate. Evolving the Thesis. One person has to be responsible Should it be the mother or the father Why should it not the father Maybe it should be…?. Agenda. Abortion. 2. “Natural” termination.

baker-diaz
Download Presentation

Mediation of Induced Abortion in Humans by Kin Selection Criteria

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mediation of Induced Abortion in Humans by Kin Selection Criteria By Alan Tate

  2. Evolving the Thesis • One person has to be responsible • Should it be the mother or the father • Why should it not the father • Maybe it should be…?

  3. Agenda • Abortion 2. “Natural” termination 3. Kin Selection and Altruism 4. Who decides?

  4. Abortion by type Spontaneous Induced Chemical Induced Surgical • STOP: Surgical Termination Of Pregnancy • Electric vacuum aspiration • Dilation and evacuation • Intrauterine cranial decompression • Natural or accidental termination (miscarriage). • < 6th week • 25% of pregnancies • Prescribed Drug • Mifepristone • Methotrexate • Misoprostol

  5. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes “…abortion appears to pose an insoluble conflict between two fundamental values: the right of a fetus to live and the right of a woman to choose her own fate.”

  6. Abortion: Response to deciding “Her own fate” Impregnation Decision Non-self Pregnancy's Providence Recombination Copulation

  7. Abortion: Who Decides? • Mother • Trained educators • Retracts the freedom in fertility • Nearest within relationship • Apt to care

  8. “Natural” Termination What do we see in Nature?

  9. “Natural” Termination • ♀ Parental investment • ♀ Incentive vs. ♂ • Ability to spontaneously abort in lions

  10. Kin Selection and Altruism • Inclusive Fitness • Direct Fitness • Indirect Fitness • Altruism • Actor is harmed • Recipient(s) benefits • Kin Selection • Gain of indirect fitness by kin • Altruistic aptness ↑ w/ relatedness • Kin Recognition

  11. Kin Selection and Altruism: Example • Blue-footed Booby • Sibling-sibling-parental interaction • Food Shortage • Siblings have a greater degree of relatedness* • Siblicide *Intraclass correlation = rVa + θVd, by summation of the variance components

  12. Kin Selection and Altruism: Example Application 1 Mother 2 Offspring 3 In terms of Fitness

  13. Kin Selection and Altruism: Application for Humans • Genetically-mediated altruistic response of kin selection • Human inability to consciously spontaneously abort young • Maternal choice would not be the most altruistic for kin

  14. Who Decides? • Fertile female with the greatest degree of relatedness • The mothers daughter (If applicable) • Fertile

  15. Evolving the Thesis • In this way, the security of nature’s most altruistic act toward the fitness of the unborn by kin selection criteria would be ensured in the mediation of regulatory propagation.

  16. References • Woodroffe, R., & Vincent, A. (1994). Mother’s little helpers: Patterns of male care in mammals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 294-297. • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Sexual selection and the Decent of Man 1871-1971 (B. Champbell ed). Chicago: Aldine. • Packer, C., & Pusey A. E. (1983). Adaptations of female lions to infanticide by incoming males. American Naturalist, 121(5), 716-728. • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16. • Sherman, P. W. (1981). Kinship, demography, and Belding’s ground squirrel nepotism. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 8, 251-259. • Sundstrom, L., & Boomsma, J. J. (2001). Conflicts and alliances in insect families. Heredity, 86, 515-521. • Manning, C. J., Wakeland, E. K., & Potts, W. K. (1992). Communal nesting patters in mice implicate MHC genes in kin recognition. Nature, 360, 581-583. • Anderson, D. J., & Sherman, P. W. (1995). Evidence of kin-selection tolerance by nestling and a siblicidal bird. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 37, 163-168. • Lougheed, L. W., & Anderson, D. J. (1999). Parent blue-footed boobies suppress siblicidal behavior of offspring. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 45, 11-18. • Roe v. Wade (1973). 410 U.S. 113. • Tribe, L. H. (1992). Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. • Freeman, S., & Herron, J. C. (2004). Evolutionary Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson & Prentice Hall.

  17. Questions?

More Related