We mostly agree, and I'm undecided on which end of that 1-5 day period life begins. In practical terms, it almost never matters whether one accepts what I called definition (1) or definition (2). In either case, surgical abortions are in almost all cases killing an innocent child and chemical abortions are at least potentially the same moral crime. Note: in rare cases, such as ectopic pregnancy, this killing of an innocent is, in my opinion, fully justified to save the life of the mother when the baby's life cannot be saved.
Yes, we absolutely do. This is just a matter of refining the argument.
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I would agree. This is covered by the "principle of double effect": where an action has a primary goal and a secondary effect. The primary goal is to save the mother by removing the ectopic pregnancy--but that can only be done by ending the life of the child, even though that effect is not intended. There is no way around it.