W.Va. Code § 61-2-30(e). However, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act did not expand the “born alive” rule to cover child neglect resulting in death. In fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifically exempted pregnant women from prosecution under the Act. We therefore decline to adopt the State’s argumen ndant mother’s fetus was not a human being for the purposes of the attempted first degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless injury statutes); State v. Ashley, 701 So.2d 338, 342 (Fla.1997) (stating that to allow the manslaughter prosecution of a mother for prenatal conduct “would require that this Court extend the ‘born alive’ doctrine in a manner that has been rejected by every other court to consider it”); State v. Dunn, 82 Wash.App. 122, 916 P.2d 952 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Reinesto v. S^i,perior Ct. of Ariz., supra
holding that an unborn child is not a dependent for purposes of the neglect statute holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child 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 holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute