Gone, in my view that case it's someone else decided what happens within the woman's body. It wasn't the attacker's place to decide what happens to the woman's foetus so it should be a separate crime, in my view. I'd still think it should be a separate crime if someone attacked a pregnant woman who was on the way to abort the foetus and the baby subsequently died. The decision to terminate the pregnancy or not should be in the pregnant woman's hands.
This case raises questions important questions, because the man was found guilty not of destroying a foetus but of destroying a child - and his crime was against the child not simply against the woman. So in law the unborn baby was regarded as a child rather than as a foetus.
And, of course, although in arguments s about abortion one commonly refers to a foetus - even when it gets to the point where it might sustain independent life - in order to emphasise that it is simply a piece of the woman's body, in common n parlance women rarely refer to foetuses.
I have yet to hear of a woman who has suffered a stillbirth or miscarriage refer to the loss of a foetus. On the contrary, women who have miscarriages, even quite early ones, clearly think of it as their child, giving it a name and often having a funeral service.
You could say 'these are only words, not principles', and that is true. But words are how we express our principles, and the language we use shows how we think.
I suspect that women are more likely to refer to an unwanted foetus and a wanted baby. And why not? Except that the baby who is named and mourned is thereby accorded the stays of 'child' with its own independent existence.
Let me be clear. I am not arguing that abortion is wrong in principle or practice (within current limits). I just think our attitudes are a long way from the extreme pro-choice purity of some on this thread. And the fuzziness of the law about when a foetus is a child probably very accurately reflects people's views.