It's true, my analogy wasn't perfect, but no analogy is. Frankly, yours is awful and clearly suited to meet your own ends. Mine showed how the irresponsibility of a couple led to a potential human being. That is my point. I could refine it with blood donations and such, but that is hardly the point of the analogy. The point is that we are talking about someone who, according to definitions made by those justifying abortion (rather than the natural definition), are not people. Just potential people. The primary purpose of the analogy is to point out that killing a potential person is really killing a person. The only further justification that can be offered is further refinement to the definition of a person: a person has a history, even if at present he has no self-awareness. But in reality this is not true either. If we were guaranteed that Terri Schiavo would make a full recovery, would not the termination of her life been immoral? But nevertheless, she was not a person, according to the "pro-choice" crowd, at the time of her death. She would one day become such, but was not at the time. Does the inconvenience of her existence now justify killing off what she will be later before she gets to that point? No.
A popular abortion analogy is that of the Famous Violinist. If you want to call an analogy "horribly flawed," this one is far more deserving than mine. But let's improve it by combining it with mine but using it in the way you interpreted mine. The famous violinist is hooked up to the other individual because of the drunk driving scenario I put forth. If I am the only person who has the proper blood type to keep that violinist alive, and I am the reason he is in his predicament, then I am indeed obliged to devote my resources to his survival. It was my choice. I was pro-choice to get into that situation by drinking and driving. With that form of pro-choice, I am also pro-consequence.