Mediation of Induced Abortion in Humans by Kin Selection CriteriaMediation of Induced Abortion in Humans by Kin Selection Criteria

By Alan Tate

Evolving the Thesis 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 Agenda

1. Abortion 1. Abortion

2. “Natural” termination2. “Natural” termination

3. Kin Selection and Altruism 3. Kin Selection and Altruism

4. Who decides? 4. Who decides?

Abortion by type Abortion by type

STOP: Surgical Termination Of

Pregnancy•Electric vacuum

aspiration •Dilation and evacuation

•Intrauterine cranial decompression

STOP: Surgical Termination Of

Pregnancy•Electric vacuum

aspiration •Dilation and evacuation

•Intrauterine cranial decompression

Prescribed Drug • Mifepristone • Methotrexate • Misoprostol

Prescribed Drug • Mifepristone • Methotrexate • Misoprostol

Natural or accidental termination (miscarriage).

• < 6th week•25% of pregnancies

Natural or accidental termination (miscarriage).

• < 6th week•25% of pregnancies

Spontaneous Spontaneous Induced ChemicalInduced Chemical Induced Surgical Induced Surgical

Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes 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.”

Abortion: Response to deciding “Her own fate”Abortion: Response to deciding “Her own fate”

Decision

Impregnation

Non-self

RecombinationCopulation

Pregnancy's Providence

Abortion: Who Decides? Abortion: Who Decides?

• Mother

• Trained educators – Retracts the freedom in fertility

• Nearest within relationship – Apt to care

“Natural” Termination “Natural” Termination

What do we see in Nature?

“Natural” Termination“Natural” Termination

• ♀ Parental investment

• ♀ Incentive vs. ♂

• Ability to spontaneously abort in lions

Kin Selection and Altruism 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

Kin Selection and Altruism: Example 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

Kin Selection and Altruism: Example ApplicationKin Selection and Altruism: Example Application

Siblicide Direct 3 Indirect3 Inclusive3

Actor1 - + +

Recipient2 + + +

Mothers

Choice Direct 3 Indirect3 Inclusive3

Actor1 - - -

Recipient2 - - -

1 Mother

2 Offspring

3 In terms of Fitness

Kin Selection and Altruism: Application for Humans 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

Who Decides? Who Decides? • Fertile female with the greatest degree of relatedness

– The mothers daughter (If applicable) • Fertile

Evolving the Thesis 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.

ReferencesReferences• 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.

Questions?