Life doesn't necessarily begin at conception.

Maybe it does.  Maybe not.  Honestly, there is  no way of absolutely determining when (or even how) human life begins, in all its complexity.  Any argument otherwise should be taken lightly and careful consideration given to the agenda of those making such an unprovable claim.  Science and medicine are constantly evolving on this and the pendulum tends to swing with this just as it does with most science.   If life doesn't begin at conception, potentially no harm, no foul.  If, on the other hand, life does begin at conception, the consequence of abortion is horrible at any stage.

You can't possibly understand my situation.  I have no other choice!

Of course, no-one should presume to understand your dilemma.  There are nearly always positive alternatives that don't involve the taking of a precious, innocent child's life (see the various helpful resources on this site).

My body, my choice!

Agreed.  No question!  A woman (or any person) should have exclusive control over what do do with her own body.  However, it's vitally important to acknowledge here that there is another, entirely separate body involved in the choice. Not one body, but two!  Thus, the correct argument should be ... Our bodies, MY choice!

Reproductive decisions are incredibly personal and should be made solely between me and my doctor, privately!

Agreed again.  Nobody should have the right to interfere with or presume upon a woman's individual reproductive choice!  However, the decision here is hardly about reproductive choice.  That choice is already made; the reproduction already made at conception.  Rather, this is a decision about what to do with the reproduction - the child - after the fact.  Whether or not to allow the child to live or to kill her.

The fetus feels no pain.

As if this matters (were it true), it has been scientifically proven to be false.  This type of false reasoning is an arguably thoughtless attempt to assuage the guilt and to depersonalize the child in her mother's eyes.

What about rape or incest?

Sadly, such tragedies do exist and must not be ignored. However, must the only response be to kill the other innocent victim - the child?  Again, there are better, less heartless alternatives.

The life or health of the mother may be in jeopardy.

This may be the most challenging of the pro-abortion arguments.  Indeed, who determines whose life is more worthy of saving in such situations; that of the mother or of her child?  While there may be no easy answer to this, honest and vigorous dialog must be had with fair and equal consideration given to the impact on the child. Anti-abortion advocates continually express a willingness to engage in this necessary discussion, while opponents seem to have already made the determination.

Anti-abortion advocates have a hidden agenda, which is to criminalize abortion outright.

Both sides have an agenda, no question.  Although, one might be surprised to learn that the clear, open and predominant agenda of anti-abortion advocates is simply to stop the casual killing of innocent children.  Criminalization is hardly the agenda, despite unsubstantiated assertions otherwise.  Nonetheless, our laws must protect all children equally, whether born or unborn.  As with all laws, legal consideration and flexibility for extreme cases is welcomed and encouraged.

Without full legal human status of the fetus, abortion is not murder.

Yet another attempt at absolution?  Does it matter?  "Murder", as a legal term, varies widely accross jurisdictions and time.  Legal definition aside, the unprovoked and deliberate killing of another human being is what it is - murder!  Do we really need legal definition to make that clear?