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?”
they normally call themselves anti-natalist instead of pro-mortalist… but it seem to be the same thing
Yeah I’m anti-natalist and think making children is selfish and immoral so long as there are actual living orphans, who only wish someone would adopt them. I view making a new person like turning your back on the actual child that you could have adopted, if you weren’t so gene drunk and obsessed with building from scratch.
But I understand the biological imperative is too strong for most. It’s part of our nature, so you shouldn’t really get too disappointed in people. Not to the point of blowing shit up anyway.
i’ve dabbled around in the anti natalist world before. i definitely shared some of their sentiments, but soon found that whole crowd to be pretty unbearable. not surprised you’re getting downvoted by them for your completely sane statement.
Hi, Anti-Natalist here, I am not pro-murder. Murder is harm, and anti-natalism is about preventing harm.
it’s the same justifications, i should say, different conclusions
They are not the same thing
It’s not. One of the core concepts of AN, the reason for it all really, is that suffering is bad. One consequence is that procreation holds a negative moral value, however another is that you should not cause suffering e.g. by fucking blowing people up.
you have the same arguments. his conclusion was different, but you’re still the same sort of crazy.
btw, there’s a lot more to life than suffering.
suffering wouldn’t matter unless there was someone alive to care about it.
Weird how my argument is “Don’t create suffering by bombing people.”
and his argument was “Imma go bomb some people.”
Your comment reeks of ignorance of the whole topic. Perhaps you should get educated on AN before spouting lies.
It’s not the first ideology to have a few members who twist it into something violent. That’s all that’s here.
Did he say that he is an anti-natalist and because he is an anti-natalist he did what he did? Or did xor simply make that up? In which case it’s xor who is twisting AN into something violent.
that was his conclusion, not his argument.
What’s funny is that a planned parenthood would secretly get him off.
He would have done more in the service of antinatalism by becoming a doctor and performing sterilization surgeries; lots of childfree people who want to get sterilization have a difficult time finding a doctor willing to perform the procedure. He would be providing the market with an in-demand service.
Or barring medical skills, donating money to various organizations (e.g. Planned Parenthood) that would advance his cause.