The English translation shows the word to mean "miscarriage", though the Hebrew word is "yasa" which actually means "to come forth". The word, itself, does not imply death, though the English word obviously does. So why presume the child is dead? If the writer wanted to imply death, he could have actually chosen the word that does. Moses uses "miscarriage" in other places, why not here? Most likely because the word is implying that the injury brings about the premature birth of the child. In fact the NASB translation, which is word-for-word says,
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."
So, no, the Lord does not view the unborn child as less valuable than that of someone outside of the womb. In fact, scripture is quite clear in other places of the value God places on the unborn child, and that He is at the very beginning of the process.
Thanks for the intelligent response. It makes sense biblically. I still don’t think that my religious beliefs should be forced on others, though. Medically and ethically the beginning of human life has not been established to any degree of agreement. The majority of Americans is not going to come around to the side of those who would ban the pill because on rare occasions it allows ovulation with subsequent prevention of implantation.