Originally Posted by onehorse

I'm not endorsing it, per se. But it seems this has sparked a bigger issue relative to what each of us considers to be ethical. So, let me play devil's advocate for a minute by answering your question.
How about I "draw the line" at doing everything possible to avoid a cripple or wounded deer that might not be recovered. After all, the rifle doesn't shoot by itself - the hunter still has to find the game and aim accurately, good rest, squeeze the trigger and all that stuff. This is just another tool. How many guys still use open sights, or, for that matter flint-tipped arrows?
Now here's an idea that I had for a scope many years ago. At that time, it was purely a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, sci-fi really, but now I'm quite sure it's doable. How about a scope that was integrated with the trigger mechanism on your rifle. With an advanced computer on board that holds electronic digitized "templates" of your game animal at every possible angle. If the crosshairs are placed on a kill zone and the computer recognizes a good aim, you pull the trigger and the rifle fires. If you don't place the crosshairs on a kill zone, the gun won't fire. It has to be re-aimed, the trigger released and pulled again. This would be not only be the ultimate safety, but would result in zero wounded or lost game. This, too, would not shoot by itself and would still require all the same hunting and shooting skills that hunters have always needed - just minus the potential for "inhumane" kills or taking bad shots in the excitement of the moment. Well...?