Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the terms so used to be effective, wherefore an interpretation of a statute which gives a word, phrase or clause thereof no function to perform, or makes it, in effect, a mere repetition of another word, phrase or clause thereof must be rejected as being unsound, if it be possible so to construe the statute as a whole, as to make all of its parts operative and effective. 4 . This Court recognized that a tort action for wrongful death could be brought on behalf of a viable unborn child in Syllabus Point 1 of Baldwin v. Butcher, 155 W.Va. 431, 184 S.E.2d 428 (1971). 5 . Contrary to the majority of states, South Carolina and Alabama have held an unborn child is a child, person, or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution. See Ankrom v. State, 152 So.3d 373 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (<HOLDING>); Whitner v. State, 328 S.C. 1, 492 S.E.2d 777 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute (B) holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child (C) holding that an unborn child is not a dependent for purposes of the neglect statute (D) 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 (E) holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child
Output (English): holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute