With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". W.Va. Code § 61-8D-4a must be interpreted alongside the common law “born alive” rule. According to the State, this Court previously adopted the “born alive” rule and argues that under this rule, it is “irrelevant that the harm was inflicted upon [Olivia Louk] a day before she was born.” The State argues that “the Court must find that a child injured prior to birth but born alive is a ‘child’ as defined in W.Va. Code § 61-8D-1(2), and may be a victim of parental neglect” pursuant to W.Va. Code § 61-8D-4. We disagree. This Court discussed the common law “bom alive” rule in State ex rel. Atkinson v. Wilson, 175 W.Va. 352, 332 S.E.2d 807 (1984). In Atkinson, the Court acknowledged that “a tort action for wrongful death could be brought on behalf of a viable unborn chil 885 P.2d 596 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Welch, 864 S.W.2d 280

A: holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy
B: holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child
C: holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child
D: holding a criminal charge of endangerment of a child does not apply to a pregnant woman who ingests an illegal substance that results in the transmission of drugs to her child through the umbilical cord
D.