Go back to high school, U.S. history specifically.  At some point after you learned why we first started getting our noses in the affairs of North and South Korea you learned about a very important Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade.  This case essentially disallowed restrictions regarding abortion on a state and federal level. 
However, this decision opened a back door prompting the question of what circumstances makes abortion illegal that still goes on to this day.
Now, let’s fast forward to the fall of 2011 when our Magnolia State voted on Amendment 26, which defined personhood (when life begins) at fertilization.  This amendment did not pass.  Despite its failure, the intention of the initiative has inspired citizens of North Dakota to spearhead the same issue, which passed on March 22.
The first time I came in contact with this amendment I impulsively felt it was ballsy and out of touch with reality.  Although I respect the former, I didn’t have to employ much mental energy to form my opinion; since I am a firm believer in individual choice, I naturally sided with pro-choice. 
Choice makes life special.  But my haste in making this decision kept me from examining the issue and therefore not allowing myself the opportunity to engage in an inner dialogue all for the sake of clarity. 
So does a person have the right to abort, and if so, when is too late?
The answer to the first question boils down to taking a life.  Taking a life under almost any circumstance is wrong and not in our power.  I speak with respect to a moral code when I refer to right or wrong. Removed from law made by man, I feel it is wrong to take another life. Now, what if there was another person who was removed from man-made law and lived according to his or her own moral code? 
Would I see it right for someone to take life of a person  who crossed him or her?  I would see it wrong from my view, but I could not find fault or condemn him or her for his or her actions since doing so is not my place; their truth is their own, not mine.  Since we live in a country where taking a life has consequences, then I understand  he or she must face them. Also, I need to address the issue of rape. 
I will never know what it would be like to harbor and birth an unwanted life into the world while constantly being reminded of probably the most traumatic experience I would ever encounter. 
I feel heavily for those placed in that situation and can’t fathom the weight the decision must bear.  Even though I would see their desire to abort as unlawful, since the decision at its core is ultimately taking a life, I would still respect that person regardless.
I realize this happens, but this doesn’t change my stance on the basic issue of a life being a life. 
So when is it too late to abort? Essentially, this question is asking when life begins.  With thought, not seeing fertilization as the dawn of life can be difficult.  I see this event as the moment when all the ingredients for human life have been combined to produce a living being. From here it grows its own organs and draws from a source. 
Now is it self-sustaining?  On a simple level no, but generally, nothing organic is self-sustaining in the sense that it dies when disconnected from a source.  So in this sense, being near-sighted on that point isn’t an effective perspective.
Amendment 26 also readdresses the issue on stances of birth control and stem cell research. Birth control in no way kills a natural process; it only prevents it from happening, mainly by preventing ovulation.  I, therefore, don’t see birth control as a debatable issue just as I don’t see altering the rules of a game before it has begun as unfair.  Point being, I think it’s wrong to disrupt a process but OK to prevent the process before the start.
Morning-after pill?  I don’t agree with that as it can take as little as 30 minutes after intercourse to fertilize an egg -you haven’t even finished your glass of water at that point.
What about stem cell research?  The recent winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine have shown we no longer need stem cells to do stem cell research.  What?  Yes! Scientists can now take a developed cell and turn it into a pluripotent cell (a cell that can develop into any of the mature tissues of the body). 
Bottom line: scientists don’t need stem cells to do embryonic research. 
You see, when issues seem obvious, we unconsciously elect to overlook them in a heedless manner. When this happens we shortchange ourselves the opportunity to sink our feet further in the sand and reconnect with, or even discover, our inner code.  I encourage every person to question everything with an open mind and dig deep into his or her own beliefs to get a better picture of where he or she stands on any issue.