Someone's logic has failed them here

but it isn't Apple's. The main point of of Apple's piece was that arguing that abortion is murder logically implies that violence can and should be used to prevent it. This obviously would apply to late-term abortions as well.

I imagine Apple didn't specifically mention that Tiller provided late-term abortions because it was utterly irrelevant to the argument he was making.

Apple's challenge is that if one believes that a fetus (even a 7-9 month old fetus) is a person, then abortion would seem to be murder, and, as such, using violence against people like Tiller is acceptable. Your response to this is to imply that 7-9 month fetuses are persons and state that there is a difference between fetuses in the earlier vs. the later stages of development. Both points may be true, but are not relevant to Apple's challenge:

If you do believe that fetuses in the 7-9th month of development are persons, then it would seem that you believe aborting them to be murder (as "murder" is the term given wrongfully ending the lives of innocent persons). The implication, for the majority of us who are not pacifists, is that the use of violence against Tiller and other late-term abortion providers is justified. This is exactly the point Apple was making.

You seem to think that one's social conscience can be divorced from one's ability to think logically and critically. The confused nature of what you wrote shows the danger of that.