Appeal to emotions

Since you're against abortion and you are pro life, what about the kids who are in foster care who need homes? Why aren't you adopting them? 

The question presented involves an appeal to emotions, which is a type of logical fallacy. An appeal to emotions attempts to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Let's break this down further.

1. **Red Herring Fallacy**: The argument diverts attention away from the issue of abortion by bringing up the topic of foster care. While both involve children, they are separate issues and addressing one does not necessarily impact one's stance on the other.

2. **False Dilemma Fallacy**: It presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that being pro-life and opposing abortion must mean one is obliged to adopt children in foster care. One can support the pro-life stance and advocate for other solutions to support children without personally adopting.

3. **Ad hominem Fallacy**: The argument indirectly attacks the personal actions of an individual (i.e., "Why aren't you adopting them?") instead of addressing the principles or the moral reasoning behind their stance on abortion. It's important to critique ideas, not individuals, unless the individual's actions are directly relevant to the argument.

4. **Oversimplification**: The question oversimplifies the complex issues of abortion and foster care, assuming that the solution to opposition to abortion is simply to adopt foster children. Both issues encompass a wide range of ethical, social, and economic factors that must be considered separately.

By focusing on these logical fallacies, it becomes clear that the argument presented does not effectively address the core beliefs or reasons behind being pro-life. It instead attempts to sidetrack the discussion with emotional and tangential points.

 Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as:  appeal to hypocrisy, “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.

Therefore, Y must not be true.

Example #1:

Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.

Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time so that can’t be true.

Explanation: It doesn’t matter (to the truth claim of the argument at least) if Helga follows her own advice or not.  While it might appear that the reason she does not follow her own advice is that she doesn’t believe it’s true, it could also be that those fat burgers are just too damn irresistible.

Example #2:

Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet while married, he has had several affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.

Explanation: The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual immorality in general, only that he is sexually immoral.

Exception: If Jimbo insisted that his actions were in line with sexual morality, then it would be a very germane part of the argument.

Tip: Again, admit when your lack of self-control or willpower has nothing to do with the truth claim of the proposition.  The following is what I remember my dad telling me about smoking (he smoked about four packs a day since he was 14).

Bo, never be a stupid a--hole like me and start smoking.  It is a disgusting habit that I know will eventually kill me.  If you never start, you will never miss it.

My dad died at age 69 -- of lung cancer.  I never touched a cigarette in my life and never plan to touch one.

There are three issues here: (1) abortion, (2) foster children, and (3) the actions of the second person. To properly analyze them, you must examine them individually and not try to take on all three simultaneously.

In addition to what is said above, I see Tu Quoque (“you too”). The Tu Quoque fallacy is a form of the ad hominem fallacy. It is a fallacy because it does not deal with the issue at hand but says, “you do it too,” to justify the proposition and shift the focus of the discussion from the issue at hand to a new one. Therefore, its use necessarily includes the Fallacy of Diversion.