Google, which owns and runs YouTube, has deemed itself the arbiter of Right and Wrong speech. Given Google’s obvious leftward lean, it should come as no surprise that conservative beliefs and causes will one day find themselves with no room to speak on Google’s platforms.

LifeNews has a story up about one conservative group that has been silenced because their videos are “dangerous” and “harmful.” Their crime? Defending life.

Last week, YouTube suspended the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) account for “repeated or severe violations of [the] Community Guidelines.” Four videos were posted to the account. The “offending” videos included one webinar explaining APR in scientific and medical terms. The remaining three told the stories of women who chose life for their babies using the APR protocol.

Citing its policies on “harmful or dangerous content,” YouTube opted to suspend the APR account entirely, explaining that it “doesn’t allow content that encourages or promotes violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.” Examples of videos that violate this policy are videos about “instructional bomb making, choking games, hard drug use, or other acts where serious injury may result.”

Great! Wanting to ensure babies get the chance to live is now “dangerous.” That bodes well for public discourse, doesn’t it?

I could maybe understand it if the process APR was pushing was deemed harmful to women, but a study showed the process had a 68% success rate and does not appear to result in dangerous, adverse effects.

The move comes mere weeks after a new study found that the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol is both safe and effective for women who change their mind after beginning a chemical abortion. The study, which followed 754 women who wanted to stop their in-progress chemical abortion, reported a 68 percent success rate in reversing the effects of mifepristone, the first pill in the two-part chemical abortion process.

Science aside, however, there is a talk we need to have about public discourse. You see, we as a society have become big fans of the “shut them up” strategy, where we move quickly to silence someone we disagree with. In the tech industry, which leans largely left, the result is a very reactionary punishment system that usually just goes one way – you rarely see “offensive” progressive videos or posts taken down as quickly as conservative ones.

This is the natural progression of silencing voices you disagree with. The Left can say a truly despicable person, like a Nazi or a Klansman, doesn’t deserve a platform, and when that becomes okay, then the Left will push forward with the next “offensive” platform.

And so it goes that perfectly reasonable debate points – the idea that babies deserve a right to life, for example – is suddenly deemed just as unacceptable as racism. So, eventually, conservatives just decide to stop engaging altogether, because there is no debating with a shouting, frothing mass of the perpetually offended. Naturally, that leads to accusations of conservatives not wanting to argue in good faith.

These are issues that we have to push back on, and we have to have these debates. We have to talk about this. If we allow our voices to get silenced, then these living human beings will have no one to fight for their chance to live.