This information is being reported at a couple of international sites, but (if accurate) it has apparently been blacked out in the U.S.
The bomber at a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California, has been identified as a 25-year-old man who left an online manifesto in which he described himself as a pro-mortalist, saying people didn’t give consent to exist.
The suspect is Guy Edward Bartkus, a 25-year-old man from Twentynine Palms, a small city about 35 miles northeast of Palm Springs. He left a 30-minute audio recording in which he explained his motive for the attack.
“I figured I would just make a recording explaining why I’ve decided to bomb an IVF building, or clinic,” he said at the beginning of the recording. “Basically, it just comes down to I’m angry that I exist and that, you know, nobody got my consent to bring me here.”
Describing himself as anti-life, he adds: “I’m very against [IVF], it’s extremely wrong. These are people who are having kids after they’ve sat there and thought about it. How much more stupid can it get?”
I think every child tries this once. Parent says “I brought you in to this world and I raised you up so I deserve a little respect” or similar. Yes demanding respect like this is a dick move and a great example of toxic parenting, but it’s the style of parenting most millennials encountered. Child responds “well I never asked to be born”.
The obvious problem is… it’s not possible to ask someone whether they would like to be conceived prior to conception.
Well, if adults are trying this “I never asked to be born” shit I guess it can’t get much stupider.
He said he had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. So it’s mental illness and just fucking sad.
As someone with BPD, I can confirm this guy is an idiot. If you don’t want to be alive the first step is killing yourself, not someone else…
From linked article: “Bartkus is believed to be the only person who was killed in Saturday’s bombing at American Reproductive Centers, though officials have yet to formally identify his remains. Four other people were injured and taken to hospital.”
Though four others were injured, he Did follow the belief of “killing yourself, not someone else”…
Good point, maybe he shouldn’t have hurt anyone though. I’m pretty indifferent on blowing up a fertility clinic however, I assume everything they did was insured and I can certainly understand the guy’s point of view.
Agreed, but how do you go from that to “therefore it’s fine to conceive”?
If someone at a party is passed out and therefore it’s not possible to communicate with them, we assume they don’t consent to anything. Why doesn’t the same reasoning apply here?
It’s entirely possible to answer. I answer this question all the time in my head because I don’t like living.
My answer is “I wouldn’t feel anything if I wasn’t conceived., because I wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t have feelings to feel. So it’s a non question.”
It’s my same answer to “what if your parents decided to abort you?” Asked by pro-lifers.
I get a chuckle out of this. It isn’t the threat that they think it is.
Seriously lol
Someone passed out at a party will wake up sooner or later. Their lack of ability to consent is temporary.
The ability to pro-create is a fundamental element of “life”. I’m not going to engage with an argument that it’s unethical, sorry.
Someone who hasn’t been conceived yet will be born sooner or later (following successful conception and gestation). Their lack of ability to consent is temporary.
Come on mate. Just to point out the obvious here…
The ability of a yet-to-be-conceived entity to consent to being conceived is not temporary, given that its not possible to consent to something retrospectively.
So we’re back to: you can’t get consent for creating a new life. Since consent can’t be obtained, you have to justify the position of doing something that affects someone without their consent.
There is precedence for this. I think a better analogy, that avoids the paradoxical issues of non-existence, would be life-saving treatment for someone who is unconscious. The treatment can either be administered (without consent, due to the patient being unconscious) to save their life. Or the treatment can be withheld and the patient dies. Justifying this treatment is predicated on the treatment being to the benefit of the recipient and is generally accepted with some various exceptions.
Many people would be of the opinion that creating a new person is beneficial to said new person. However this is where the fundamental disagreement between antinatalists and pronatalists would be. Is creating a new person beneficial or detrimental to the person being created? The hard antinatalism position says that it is “always bad”, but of course the answer to this question can be conditional as well and need not be an absolute “always good” or “always bad”. And people have different thresholds for where this point is. That’s it, that’s the difference of opinion.
I don’t really care what the hard antinatalism position is in the same way I don’t care what the hard flat earth position is.
You’re talking about it as though it’s a credible ideology when in reality it is, at best, a nutty thought experiment with no real world application.
It’s not a question of whether being brought into existence is good.
As a parent, I acknowledged and accepted the risk that a potential child might not have wanted to be born. That’s it. Presently, I don’t know how I will navigate that if it turns out to be the case, the same way I don’t know how I will navigate my daughter dating or my son watching porn, but I do know I’m going to try my best to figure those things out when I encounter them.
Every parent since the dawn of time has made up solutions as problems have arisen, some better than others. No parent seriously considered whether their unconceived child consented.
It is a credible ideology, even if you disagree with it, and there are legitimate discussions to be had in academic and philosophical circles. And it absolutely does have real world applications, even if these are limited in scope:
Many people choose to personally abstain from reproduction out of these considerations.
Veganism is, at its core, a form of applied antinatalism.
The push for spay/neuter of companion animals is another direct application of this ideology
Again, there is room for it so long as it remains limited in scope and isn’t taken to an extreme degree such as engaging in abhorrent acts of violence.
Maybe it should be. If not a question of whether it is good or not, then what is it a question of? And if one does not believe that it is good, then why proceed?
This is due to selection bias. One might presume that those who do give this serious consideration would refrain from becoming parents.
If I believe in numerology and as a result decide to pat myself on the head 12 times before bed that is not evidence that numerology is not a nutty woo woo theory and has real world applications.
As I said, prospective parents need to accept the risk that their child might resent them for being born. I’m happy to consider that in the unlikely circumstance that I encounter it
That’s fine, but there’s no rational basis for your position, and therefore no reason to call the dude “stupid” regarding that. He thinks life sucks and you don’t but that’s just a difference in values.
The difference in values is fine. The bombing clinics, less so.
I never asked to be born this stupid, but here I am