I do support the use of graphic visuals in the abortion debate:
But Andrea Mrozek, of the Ottawa-based group Pro Woman Pro Life, said she supports the Calgary demonstrations because they shed light on an issue few want to discuss in Canada. “Abortion is very hidden and concealed in our culture and [this tactic] brings it out into the open in a way that can’t be avoided. I think that’s very important.”
by 
There was another point mentioned in the article that I whole heartedly agree with. If they’re old enough to have an abortion, then they’re old enough to see what an abortion really is.
The ‘too graphic’ objection is reminiscent of the; ‘Well, what about in the case of rape?’ Both these points are sensationalist, emotive, polemics that serve to hide a pro abortion agenda. One is supposed to be righteously offended by these ‘too graphic’ pictures and thus supportive of banning them. Yet, our culture is full of horrible depictions in protest movements or in movies, television or the media and there is no significant objection or civil action to arrest those involved. The issue is not pictures but protecting an abortion agenda. So also with the ‘rape’ alarm. One is supposed to be so offended by rape that no one would ever oppose anything that would be caring for the victim. However, being that abortion is not about care or healing or closure one is left to see that the objection of, ‘Well what about in the case of rape?’, is about protecting the abortion agenda.