"Shock value"? No, maybe educative.

I don't know why seeing a foetus would come as a "shock" to experienced hunters?!

All the naysayers, ever visited a natural history museum with exhibits of wild animals? The ones I have visited had exhibits of foetuses. Was the obtaining of those foetuses, cruel and unethical? Maybe it is educative.

Certainly the answers on here are educative.

As for "harming hunting" .... and all that crap .... maybe we should institute the "no blood" on a dead animal some forums and magazines insist on.

Maybe instead educating people is a better idea, including educating hunters.

I wonder for the guys on safari, whom harvest females say for bait or meat, how many times they might be pregnant. Except the client never sees it as all the dirty work is done by the skinning and butchering staff, while the client enjoys a whiskey or gin and tonic in the safari camp's bar?

We harvest about 4 million kangaroos in Australia per year. The standard practice is if taking a females is to find out if it is carrying a joey. And if so, you kill it. Considered neither unethical nor cruel. The opposite.

In Scandanavia if shooting a moose cow, with a calf at foot, the practice is to shoot the calf first and then only try to shoot the cow. Is the shooting of the calf unethical or cruel? No of course not.

Leave the double standards to the greenies and animal rightists whom live in fairy castles of make believe.