what kind of fallacy is this statementLetter 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?”

Calling fetility drugs the "moral equivalent of abortion" is an invalid analogy. Such drugs cause multiple ovulation, with each egg having a reasonable chance of fertilization and survival. Abortion terminates the growth of an embryo or fetus.

The fallacy in the statement is called "Invalid Analogy." An analogy is when two things or situations are compared to highlight similarities between them. In this case, the person making the argument is trying to equate the use of fertility drugs to the act of abortion.

However, the analogy is invalid because the two situations being compared are not truly equivalent. Fertility drugs stimulate ovulation, increasing the chances of multiple embryos being conceived. While it is true that in some cases, one or more of these embryos may not survive, it is not the same as intentionally terminating the growth of an embryo or fetus through abortion.

The person making this argument is trying to criticize the inconsistency of anti-abortionists who are against abortion but not against fertility drugs. However, the argument ignores the crucial difference between the two actions. Therefore, it is a fallacy of invalid analogy.