Over the past four years I have written for the National Post about these kinds of posters when they’ve appeared on university campuses. In almost all cases, especially at Carleton University in Ottawa where students were arrested, these displays have led to confrontations with the school’s administrator.

The schools argue that the images are too grotesque and that passersby should not be subjected to them.

From my point of view, however, those incidents had less to do with the content of the photos than about right to free speech. There is another reason these stories are so important: universities are supposed to encourage lively debate on the most difficult of issues — and abortion is a difficult issue.

But there was more to the story. Many pro-life clubs had already faced the wrath of student councils that decided any group opposed to abortion must be anti-women. I will not attempt to explain the logic of this since I have no idea what the logic is, but the end result is that many pro-life clubs have been banned outright.

What is currently happening in Calgary is different. The demonstrators are not standing on school property but across the street. There are no legal issues at stake. My understanding is that some parents have complained but nothing beyond that. The one obvious issue is the age of the people who will see the posters, some as young as 14.

The arguments for and against these posters go something like this: Those who approve say abortion has become such a taboo subject that these posters are needed to remind society what having an abortion really means — the physical destruction of a life.

“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,” said Andrea Mrozek, of the Ottawa-based group Pro Woman Pro Life.

On the other side is the argument that using images of mutilated human remains shows disrespect for life.

But I think these incidents reveal something more troubling.  The only time society in general discusses these issues is when it is debating the pros and cons of demonstrations and posters. Politicians never discuss it unless it is to confirm a “woman’s right to choose,” which means a woman’s right to have an abortion.

What if Jack Layton were to get up and say that it is unacceptable that so many poor women are forced to have an abortion because they have no financial support? Layton is a big supporter of the poor. What if he suggested that the government help those women realize their dreams of education and job and find way to help them keep their babies?

What if he and Stephen Harper joined together — not to change the law, because that is not going to happen — but to show Canada is a place that cares deeply about its young people, its future generations and about life. It would show that Harper still listens to those social conservatives who were his earliest supporters.

This will not happen though because politicians are terrified of the issue.

They are so concerned about offending anyone who would think this a first step to making abortion illegal that they have become tongue tied.

So the debate will continue to revolve around posters.

(Charles Lewis writes about religion for the National Post and is the editor of Holy Post, the paper’s online religion site.)