Bear with me. Most traditional feminists would say that being pro-life is an automatic disqualifier for calling yourself a feminist. I find this argument dramatically uncompelling. Fetal personhood is a quasi-empirical value judgement that should not be made for instrumental reasons--we can't decide that six year old children aren't persons simply because this would possibly make it easier to advance female equality.
To be sure, it's obvious to me that slaves are persons, while I find the personhood of fetuses deeply problematic. But I don't think it's facially ludicrous to declare that they are persons. To me that means that "Feminists for Life" cannot, as I've heard declared, be an oxymoron; it seems perfectly possible to embrace all the other tenets of whatever you want to define as feminism, and also regretfully believe that since fetuses are persons, we cannot embrace this particular means of women's liberation.
Megan is not a feminist because she she doesn't think about or understand power. She's an authoritarian, and assumes power belongs to the powerful. The question is not "is a fetus a child." The question is, who decides what a woman does with her body, she or someone else?* Who owns a woman's body? The answer is pretty obvious, to a feminist.
*Women will kill their children, legally or illegally. Abortion doesn't disappear when it's outlawed. And if all abortion were magically eradicated somehow, the child would be killed after birth instead. That's reality. Just as men (and women) will kill foreign babies if they want to wage war against a country. If every baby's life is sacred and none must be allowed to die for any reason, war must be eradicated as well as abortion. Good luck with that.