I think you just asked the pivotal question.
As a libertarian one doubts that Eagle Eye views any one of these infants as people, inspite of their abilities to react to and to attempt to flee the device designed to rip them limb from limb. As anyone who has ever viewed the film "silent Scream" knows, the infant senses the imminent harm and attempts to flee the D&C.
Daniel Pearl gets his head cut off and we say the people who did it are terrorists who practice terrorism.
PP sticks forceps into an infant's head and sucks his brains out, but because Eagle Eye, the "libertarian" Eagle Eye, that is, doesn't consider the infant a person, because of supposed terms of legal art and finesse it doesn't count as terrorism.
Eagle Eye's definition of "terrorism" is conveniently too narrow.
The Princeton dictionary (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) defines terrorism as: "•the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"
The ideology which calculates the violence is just another legal euphemism called "Freedom of Choice."
