focused on two questions: whether the definition of “person” from section § 5-13-210 includes an [14unborn person and whether sufficient evidence supports the verdict. At no point did appellant, the State, or amici analyze whether “otherwise introduced” excludes a passive bodily function. Nor did appellant raise at trial the argument that “otherwise introduced” could not include a passive transfer through the umbilical cord post-delivery. Instead, she limited her argument concerning post-delivery transfer to the insufficiency of the evidence. We have re.peatedly held that we will not address an issue not raised and ruled on by the trial court and to otherwise would be to issue an advisory opinion, which we will-not do! See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 314 Ark. 471, 863 S.W.2d 305 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Rather than ruling on an undeveloped issue, I
holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding the constitutional issue was not preserved and thus declining to issue an advisory opinion holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it  