the day on which persons are born to the same minute of the corresponding day completing the period of minority.” Geiser asserts N.D.C.C. § 14-10-01, clearly establishes that: “ ‘child’ means a person who is a ‘minor’, whose existence and age is reckoned from the first minute of the day on which the person is born.” The State contends if the Legislature intended “child” and “minor” to mean the same thing, it could have used the word “minor.” However, N.D.C.C. § 14-10-01, provides: “In this code, unless otherwise specified, the term ‘child’ means ‘minor.’ ” Therefore, whether the Legislature used the word “child” or “minor” is irrelevant, because the terms are equivalent. Additionally, the State asserts if the Legislature wanted N.D.C.C. § 14-10-01 to apply to N.D.C.C. § 19- App.2006) (<HOLDING>); People v. Hardy, 188 Mich.App. 305, 469
holding that mother could not be prosecuted under child abuse statute for prenatal use of heroin holding that mother may not be prosecuted criminally for child endangerment for prenatal substance abuse holding a mother not criminally liable for child endangerment for ingesting heroin while pregnant holding a woman may be prosecuted for child neglect and endangering a child for prenatal substance abuse holding a mother may not be held criminally liable under a reckless endangerment statute for the effect that prenatal ingestion of a controlled substance may have on her child pre or postbirth