The legal definition in most states in the U.S. say when they are removed from the womb

Legal rulings will vary between jurisdictions. Because, inconvenient though it is, life is not an on/off switch - at either end. In both cases there is definitely not live, and definitely live - and a significant area in between.

Yes, and it changes from place to place. It is normally regarded as the time after contraception that you can still have an abortion. However, i know that in the UK that if you kill a baby before it has been born, then it does not count as a murder.

No. Courts have determined when a fetus becomes a person so that legal rights vest, but no court (in the U.S.) has made a determination as to when life begins. And I suspect no precedent setting court ever will. This is a scientific (or maybe a religious) question, but not a legal one. Scientists have determined when life begins (i.e. at conception), but the law does not really care about this. why? Because it is irrelevant. For example, historically, you could only murder a fetus if it were born alive. If I punched you in the stomach at 9.5 months, and you miscarry, I would have only been charged with murder if your fetus was born alive and then died. The reason for this is child birth was dangerous, and nearly half of all children were still born. As medical science advanced, so did the law. Today, in nearly every state, you can be charged with murder if you kill a fetus (note the exact timing varies by state). This is because today, even premature babies, have a high survival rate. However, whether you look at historic law or the currents law, the point life begins is irrelevant. Similarly, in Roe v. Wade (and it progeny), the Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to an abortion so long as the fetus is not viable. Thus, even if life begins at conception, the court only cares about whether or not the fetus could live separated from the mother. As a side note: I am willing to predict that the right to an abortion will eventually be abolished WITHOUT overruling Roe v. Wade. Why? As medical science advances, eventually a fetus will be viable shortly after conception. If this is true, then that is when a mothers right to abort will end (regardless as to whether when life begins).

The federal law bans "partial-birth abortion," a legal term of art, defined in the law itself as any abortion in which the baby is delivered feet-first "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before being killed. The complete official text of the law, in a searchable format, is here. In recent months, some commentators, including Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times and Kenneth Jost of Congressional Quarterly, have argued that the term "partial-birth" is misleading because the method is usually used months before the end of a full-term pregnancy. (It is most often used in the fifth and sixth months, but sometimes later.) These objections rest on a baffling failure to recognize that legal "live births" commonly occur long before full term -- indeed, "live births" are commonplace even early in the fifth month of pregnancy. Legally, under the laws of virtually every state and under federal law, once a human is entirely outside the mother and draws breath, or shows other signs of life such as heartbeat or movement of voluntary muscles, a live birth has occurred, and all the protections of law attach — whether or not the baby is “viable” (capable of long-term survival). At the stages of development at which most partial-birth abortions are performed, the great majority of babies would be legal “live births” if they were expelled by spontaneous premature labor, and many would be long-term survivors. For further discussion of the relationship between the legal definition of "live birth" and the legal definition of "partial-birth," click here. In February 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times that “in the vast majority of cases” the method is used on “a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along” (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). Twenty weeks is halfway through a full-term pregnancy — the middle of the fifth month. http://grove.ufl.edu/~prolife/ Couldn't post as a comment for some reason

No. Because it cannot be medically determined either

If you consider this to be a legal issue, the original law given to the Isrealites stipulated the course of action when a "pregnant woman" was injured by someone. Exodus chapter 21 verse 23 states "But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life,*+ 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..." This helps us to view the matter from God's perspective, a fatal injury to the unborn child meant that the offender should also lose his/her life. The scientific definition of life: After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus. If you have an opportunity to read the entire account in Exodus you will see that the term "eye for an eye" is referring to an incident affecting the health of an unborn child in direct relation to a physical altercation involving a pregnant woman.

probably at conception