AFTER the Easter break we will be discussing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It will be an emotive, impassioned debate as we tackle the many different issues contained within it.

It will be further complicated by those who oppose abortion who will try to use the debate to secure changes to the current law. Some want a ban on abortion, to reduce the weeks allowed to obtain an abortion or the introduction of further hurdles to make abortion more difficult.

There will also be legislation controlling the licence by the independent regulator of the use of hybrid embryos for research. A 2003 MORI poll showed that around 70 per cent of the British public support the use of human embryos for medical research and this increased to 79 per cent in the public consultation exercise by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in 2007.

I admit to being a little uncomfortable with the notion of using hybrid embryos in research. But with strict time limited controls I think I should support the development of science and give some hope to patients and families living with serious, life-limiting and incurable conditions who stand to benefit from such research.

All of these are troubling issues and I have begun to receive a few letters that cover the complete spectrum of debate. Some are against abortion, others argue that the law should change to give a greater number of weeks before termination becomes illegal.

I have also already received two delegations. One wanted me to consider voting against the Bill's more liberal proposals, concerned with the morality of abortion and the issue of research on animal/ human hybrids. The second argued that the current abortion laws make it too difficult for the most vulnerable to access abortion and birth control. They want the Government to give scientists greater freedom to explore cures for the most debilitating and life-threatening diseases and maintain the UK's position as a world leader in this important field.

It's one of those issues where there can be no winners as the issues are so emotive whatever we politicians do someone will criticise us, angry that their deeply-held convictions are being over-ridden.

Given that being childless is the huge sadness in my life I can honestly say that I would not have sought an abortion for myself. But this is not about me - my choices, my morality, it is about those women who have different circumstances to mine, different beliefs, different concerns, and giving them the choice and freedom to choose.

When making a decision about how to vote on these types of issues I do not make decisions about what I would want for myself based on personal need or personal moral convictions, but on the possible consequences for the largest number of my constituents.

I do want to see a reduction in the number of abortions, as I am sure everyone does, but I do not believe restricting access to services is the solution, or reducing the time limit. This could force women to resort to the use of back street quacks and therefore put women's lives at risk. I could not look in the eyes of a mother who had lost their daughters to some unlicensed, dangerous backstreet criminal because I had chosen to vote away her access to abortion to salve some personal conscience.

If women are wanting abortions then I would want to see more of them taking place earlier and therefore the need for two doctors to agree to an abortion in the first trimester is outdated; the source of unnecessary delays and expense.

The best way of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is to improve women's access to contraception, as well as educating women and men about sexual health. Do we have that in Newham?

Are women and men getting the contraceptive advice and support that they need, or are there gaps? Let me know what you think. Write to Lyn Brown MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA, e-mail brownl@parliament.uk or call my office on (020) 7219 6999.