SIR – Bob Churchill won’t wriggle out of the questions he leaves unanswered about abortion (November 11). He has still not explained what moral difficulty there would be about abortion if a foetus were only, in his words, “an unconscious, microscopic ball of fused cells” (this from someone with the brass neck to accuse others of ignorance about prenatal development).

Now he has more to answer for. If conception isn’t a defining moment, at what precise point does a developing human being become morally entitled to full respect?

When would others have been morally entitled to end Mr Churchill’s life in the womb?

Had he been the result of rape, would it have made a difference?

The many women who constitute the vast majority of anti-abortion campaigners would be mightily surprised (to say the least) by Mr Churchill’s suggestion that they “undermine the severity of rape”. What they, Andrew Grant, I and countless others point out is that the unborn child is a victim too. However understandable some may call it, it’s no more morally acceptable to kill that child than it would be to kill the rapist.

JULIAN THAKE, Worcester.