It is in the interest of pressure groups to do all they can to force an entry into the law which they see as morally licit. In tensely related climates an "emotional atmosphere" is created. These can be short-term (as happens among fans in a football match), and long term, which is more lasting, catalysed by social media and with a lack of proper public debate, which is inclusive and seeks out group rather than invitees, this emotional climate becomes emotional contagion. In theories of values in populations, we see that this spreads faster than non-emotional reason. We have seen this with Astra-Zeneca. Ethics and morality are not a statistic. But bioethics has to arrive to politicians, who often have to play by what the numbers are saying.

At the end of the day it is about hope and trust. We have to have faith in our politicians who walk a tightrope between values and votes. The trust and hope we put in them is that they will legislate according to a certain morality and not have blinders which focus only on one aspect, such as the economy. The economy is what drives the country, but without values the experts are now telling us that measure such as Gross National Product by no means tell us anything about how the individuals fare - which was obvious all along, really. That democracies work together with other ideologies shows that we need some form of cooperation but unless we are to reduce our moral choices down to numbers, we hope to vote for parties with clear principles which reflect our own and that these principles are followed in the long term. Unfortunately, principles between parties can be too polarised and when one votes for a party which overall reflects his or her ideologies, or which one feels is the best to run the country at the time, one also has to accept a package which may challenge moral areas. Conversely to uphold a party which is not fit for ruling but which still bases itself on strong principles can spell disaster as well.

Then there were three! - the two parties and a private member's bill. Now, the problem I find with a private member's bill is that the person proposing it knows that it is something which has been ignored for a long time and which has been boiling to a point that many do not have the patience to support. So it comes out of the blue and is suddenly thrown upon all our politicians, social institutions, social media, and all those concerned, without any proper public debate. This happened with divorce, it was on the verge of happening with euthanasia and is now happening with abortion.

Of course, these bills, not only bypass public debate, which, if at all, occurs in a very short time, but it bypasses all the groups who would wish to speak out but need help in doing so. Instead we give them some form of opportunity like a Parliamentary Social Affairs Committee. But such a committee is only for the parliamentarians to try to understand all the undercurrents. It does not give time for people to reflect.

The danger of course is that people may be too emotive. In their support and empathy for some, they may ignore decades of argument (indeed centuries, at that), blame an institution like the Church keeping people back and think that we need to move forward. As long as you lobby enough, as long as other countries are doing it, you stand a good chance, no matter the principles and values of your country or party, that in time things will change.

Fortunately, they do change for the better frequently. Gay people have suffered enough and even though some of us feel uncomfortable seeing people of the same sex kissing on television, deep down we know that the problem had been kept under the rug for a long time in denial of its existence. We called it an illness, a crime, and then invoked morality. I do not understand it, but I do understand that we need to have respect for people even if they are different in some respects than us.

Hollywood has done more for progression of this sort than have institutions which try to uphold a certain morality. The reason is simple. Hollywood plays on emotions and comes directly into our living rooms. Which goes to show that morality is not only upheld by rational argument but that rational argument itself is based on some form of underlying empathy. Philosophy has been strong to undermine empathy and emotions for a long time, but advance in neuro-ethics is now telling us another thing. Our emotions are part and parcel of our reasoning - and there are the pathways to prove it. Indeed, pure reason is only a tool to make you arrive where your intuition is probably telling you where you want to go. But this does not mean that ethics is only a feeling. Without rational thought we cannot have rational laws.

A private member's bill is saying enough is enough (hopefully it is not done to promote one's ego). It attempts to put a stop to what it deems as nonsense.

Science cannot tell us what is morally right - at least not always. It can tell us when life begins; it cannot tell us when we ought to put a moral value on that life. Certainly, a foetus has the same moral value of a child or an adult. But what about a fertilized egg? Does this mean that moral value increases until at some stage during early pregnancy it plateaus off? This is what countries seem to say when they put a limit on abortion - such as two or three months. At the end of the day it is a compromise. The right over one's body is certainly valid when there are strong medical reasons. But simply to assert a right if I do not want the baby for social reasons? After all, there is contraception and emergency contraception. What right are we seeking here? Why don't I have a right to sell my kidney? The answer is that it exposes those less fortunate and vulnerable. Have we been affected by the emotional atmosphere of the rest of the world? What exactly do I mean by a right over my body? If I am comfortable amputating my leg, should I have that right and oblige a doctor to do it? Yes, this actually happened.

Pierre Malliachairs the Bioethics Research Programme of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery. He also chairs the Bioethics Consultative Committee. Email: [email protected]

This article is his personal opinion and does not represent the opinion of any committee or Board he serves on