Feinstein is logically inconsistent in many ways the least being that she's opposed to using elective abortion for selecting the sex of the child. Or should I say gender. I still wonder what she would think about elective abortion of a child which displayed characteristics of being a hermaphrodite. I'm sure that might run contrary to her views concerning future "trans-gender" folks.
The real elephant in the parlor though is that Roe v. Wade which granted women the "right to choose" was decided on the issue of viability of the fetus not the definition of whether a fetus was a human being (though this was either stated or inferred). Viability in the original argument also didn't extend into the third trimester of pregnancy either. I raise this point because the pro-abortionists have and continue to use the argument that if you define the fetus as a human being that somehow that's going to impede on either a women's "right to choose" or a complete roll-back of Roe v Wade. Since Roe v. Wade has been extended out to emcompass all elective abortion by these same advocates, I really don't see that they've anything much to worry about!