Slippery slope
You made out like if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and Bonobo monkeys.
It's a nice graphic, but it makes the same mistakes as all the other lists written by those who believe in mere classical rationality.
It's not obvious to me that Bayesian reasoning implies that slippery slopes always happen. In short, I don't understand your assertion.
http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Just printed an A3 of this.
See now http://lesswrong.com/lw/c9u/logical_fallacies_poster_a_lesswrong_adaptation/