In my opinion, my favorite arguments are about health.

The government should not be able to force you to harm yourself. Though, the government also is responsible for protecting you from harming other citizens. In pregnancy, there can be all types of complications that result in irreversible damage. The position is just that another person cannot force someone to take that risk. If the government could take the the unborn baby and put it in a incubator without harm to the mother, this argument would fall apart, but science isn't at that level yet. The governments interest in protecting that other person is supposed to increase as they become more independent.

And, the other maybe morally not so clear argument.

You're concerned with something that is not alive and is unconscious. Humans don't even remember the first few years of their lives, much less a time when their brains are not even developed. It's like arguing that you should not be able to kill the mouse in your house. (because the collection of cells has the cognitive capacity much less than that of a mouse)

Every sperm is sacred, what is wrong with you?

And the Supreme Court decision argument I think is something like the following.

You are different in some way than someone else. 150 years ago, that could be the difference of being lynched by the people if you said something not allowed for that group. You're now pregnant, which is a medical condition which is protected for that previous reason. The decisions you make with your heath is between you and your doctor, not anyone else, because of the previous stated reason.