A question about the genetic fallacy

So imagine this said as a 'Grumpy Old Man'.     When I learned the logical fallacies, it was in the '70's, and there are just too damn many subcategories these days.   

Genetic-schemetic.  Phooey.   To me the argument about the old virtuous Grandmother above is 'appeal to false authority', unless the Grandmother has direct experience with an aborted fetus, then she should relay her interpretation of the facts in the matter to support the opinion.      

But to the point I'm trying to make.....the over-complexification of this field I would argue exclude mere mortals who could indeed master a dozen or so fallacies and call out the various abusers of logic.     The highly specialized forms of the fallacies have evolved to serve the few.     flim-flam-phooey!

My objection is that the grandmother is not an authority on something, to justify the "false authority fallacy" . Instead the characteristic that gives supposedly credibility to her words is her virtue and kindness. 

But she is being given the status of a bona-fide authority.   There are probably a dozen ways the appeal to false authority can be sub-categorized, but to what end?   What population does that serve?    

I'd say subcategorizing the appeal to false authority does not invalidate that the Grandmother, or the original pious and virtuous folks of the original post have been granted or assume a position of authority, and this is what allows them to project their opinion of what is or is not true on the rest of us.   

I didn't subcategorize false authority. I argued that it is not an authority (which requires a field of expertise) case at all, but it is something else. The argument does not imply the grandmother as expert in something. Just virtuous.

Do I incorrectly infer the Grandmother is considered an authority on fetal pain?     That is, I infer that anyone who's word alone, without the need for substantiating data is conferred as an authority.

[To John Best]

Yes, that's where we disagree. The grandmother is someone who the granddaughter admires, not someone whom she knows that has an authority to some field and erroneously transfers that expertise to another field. It's admiration. Same as appeal to celebrity . If it was up to me, I would name such fallacies as "Appeal to admiration". Both cases however are different from the False Authority, where people think that since a person is qualified enough for one field, perhaps their training is adequate to express opinion for another one because in their minds that person has the label of "Expert", while they should label them as "Expert (only) in their field". Is the grandmother mistaken as "Expert" while she should be labeled as "Expert in cooking"? If the answer is no, then it's not False Authority. It's Righteousness instead. For me there's a clear difference. You don't see the difference between "Authority" and "Admiration". If you are an authority, you may be admired for that. You don't have to be an authority (i.e be an expert at something) though to be admired. 

Ah, thank you this is clearer.   I see the distinction you draw between admiration and authority.   

Where we differ is in how much value is to be gained making the distinction.   

In my opinion we would do well to dispatch with the genetic, righteous, and argument from age fallacies (and probably others) and classify them in the 'false authority' category.   The reason being, does the precise reason someone is fooled into granting false authority matter?  No, the receiver of the argument must merely be accurate in assessing validity of the various premises.     

Yes, a clear 'distinction without a difference' to the most important group, the 'common man'.    I suppose  as one aspires ascent into certain academic niches these distinctions are the bread and butter. 

I suggest attention would be worthwhile put towards regrouping the master list of fallacies on this website into prioritized, named groupings.     Discussions regarding the re-organizations would be more worthwhile than typical thus far, and more inclusive, if inclusivity is the goal.