Is this one is a drawing the line fallacy? Letter to the editor: "Andrea Keene's selective morality is once again showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have, why they haven't come out against them too. The use of these drugs frequently results in multiple births, which leads to the death of one of the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isn’t this murder?"
Look at this one... See if you think it fits this situation. The drawing the line fallacy is also called the "slippery slope". You might want to look at both of these.
This is the site for the entire list.
The statement in question uses a form of logical fallacy known as the "drawing the line" fallacy or the "tu quoque" fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses another person's argument by pointing out a perceived inconsistency or hypocrisy, rather than addressing the argument itself.
In this case, the writer of the letter to the editor is accusing Andrea Keene of selective morality because she expresses her opposition to abortion but not fertility drugs. The writer then suggests that if anti-abortionists consider abortion to be morally wrong, they should also consider fertility drugs as morally wrong, due to the potential harm caused to the infants involved.
However, the fallacy lies in the fact that the writer dismisses the argument against abortion by shifting the focus to fertility drugs. This is an attempt to undermine the argument by drawing a line of inconsistency, rather than addressing the argument directly. Whether or not the writer's claim about the moral equivalence of fertility drugs and abortion is valid, it does not negate the argument against abortion itself.
To avoid falling into this fallacy, it is important to address the argument at hand and evaluate its merits independently, rather than attempting to undermine it by pointing out perceived inconsistencies or hypocrisy.