Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
following birth, even though the initial ingestion by the pregnant woman occurred pre-birth. [¶ 15] “The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, fully renewable on appeal.” State v. Geiser, 2009 ND 36, ¶ 6, 763 N.W.2d 469. “When interpreting statutes, this Court has a duty to ascertain the Legislature’s intent.” Id. at ¶ 8. “Words used in any statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, unless a contrary intention plainly appears, but any words explained in this code are to be understood as thus explained.” N.D.C.C. § 1-02-02. “Technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, or as are defined by statute, must be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.” N.D.C.C. § (Ct.App.2006) ; State v. Gray, 62 Ohio St.3d 514, 584 N.E.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute
B. holding a mothers ingestion of a controlled substance while pregnant does not constitute child abuse as an unborn child is not a person for purposes of criminal prosecution
C. holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child
D. holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy
E. holding an unborn viable fetus is not a human being under the new mexico child abuse statute and the mothers use of cocaine during pregnancy was not child abuse
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.