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’ve been calling out these antinatalist types for a while, they’re fucked up. It was getting pretty bad on reddit years ago. Almost feels like a psyops thing tbh with how hard it was being spread.
Pretty strong here on Lemmy too.
I get why people might choose not to have children, but to assert that others shouldn’t is a whole other thing.
Just in the last few days there was a post about how climate change is going to effect children born today - comments were pretty wild.
Arguing that people should consider not having kids because of the state of the climate, cost of living, state of society, overpopulation, or whatever, is fine as long as it is done respectfully of other people’s freedom to decide. But evidently that was not bombing guy’s approach.
I get why people might choose not to have children, but to assert that others shouldn’t is a whole other thing.
Plenty of people seem to have no problem asserting that others should have children.
But really, the problem isn’t about asserting what one should/shouldn’t do. At that stage, it is still just one’s opinion. It becomes a problem when someone resorts to using intimidation, coercion, or outright violence to try and impose one’s will.
I’ve never encountered the problem of being told I should have children, nor intimidation, coercion, or violence.
I’ve never encountered the problem of being told I should have children
Childfree people encounter this all the time.
nor intimidation, coercion, or violence.
It can happen in abusive relationships, but it would be rare in more general situations.
I tried looking up some communities after I saw people complain about them. And 99.9999% of it is people venting about being told for the 50th time in twenty years that they’ll change their mind about having kids any day now. Or doctors refusing hysterectomies to unmarried women because they don’t have their husband consent(this still regularly happens in the US and Europe. To the point where there are resources where you can look up doctors who aren’t living in the 50s). Then you see the community brought up by other people and they’re often described as filled with people who want to murder children.
It’s honestly quite wild how much people take those generalized accusations at face value because they saw one or two peoeple say something inappropriate.
I have kids, and being told that I’ve mistreated them by having them is kind of offensive.
I have kids (some grown up) and sometimes spontaneously have this worry myself, just from looking at the news, especially the climate destruction and the persecution of LGBTQ+ people since none of my kids fit the “straight white cis men only” template of the right. When I was young I was quite clear that I didn’t want to have kids in a society that was destroying its planet. But adult decisions can be more complex and life went a different way.
Way to ignore their valid point. No one is saying that
Yeah, the people always ragging on anti natalists honestly are liars. They are really just touchy and insecure about their decision to have kids. They have to justify that decision by demonizing anyone’s decision to the contrary
This comment in the context of a guy bombing other people’s IVF attempts? It’s a valid choice to opt out for oneself, it’s certainly not valid to force others to opt out.
Somewhere in the middle are the folks that take any opportunity to talk about how they think anyone having a kid is highly irresponsible, standing in judgement of people who have even one kid.
I don’t care if you want to refrain from kids and stand by that decision. Closest I’ll come to not minding my own business is to mention that people can change their minds, so you may want to hedge your bets with something reversible like an IUD instead of a hysterectomy, but ultimately you may stand by the decision and that’s all your business.
The true context here is that anytime the subject of having kids comes up, those who don’t have them are demonized. This context of this article is just being used an excuse to shield that demonization from any criticism, so fuck that royally.
so you may want to hedge your bets with something reversible like an IUD instead of a hysterectomy
is the opposite of:
that’s all your business
It’s 100% none of anyone’s business if we might change our minds. Most won’t, and it’s even questionable for our parents to say that shit, let alone internet randos.
Honestly, I think bringing children into this world right now is irresponsible. But that’s my opinion
I never wanted to exist is soemthing I felt a lot when I realized death was a thing as a kid and religion felt fake, so I kinda get it, but its very extremist to the point of feeling like its out of a fantasy world, like no more humans because existence is suffering lol
These guys exist on lemmy as well. I’m not sure what sort of people are attracted to that doomer ideology but I fucking hate that defeatist mentality.
Oh I didn’t ask to be born, we have too many people anyway, you’re so irresponsible to have kids with climate change and fascism and all, entirely ignoring the fact that this is at best a niche ideology amongst the educated part of western societies and will have zero bearing on the future aside from diminishing that specific demographic.
If anything those people, the educated and skilled, should be reproducing more, not less, because ensuring a liveable tomorrow needs these kids. Your psy ops idea has some merit as well, it really seems odd that only western “liberal elites” are buying into this insanity.
Edit: wah
Nothing wrong with not choosing to have kids or whatever, but yeah, this is really taking that ideology to a ridiculous extreme.
Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a philosophical view that deems procreation to be unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Antinatalists are beyond people who decided to not have kids.
It’s a respectable philosophical position with serious arguments. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with advocating it. Bombing for the cause is a different matter.
Not really. This is the same pants-on-head level reasoning that leads people to oppose medical procedures on animals or even suggest that we should kill them to avoid suffering merely because they can’t consent to anything. Just because they can’t consent doesn’t mean we can’t infer what their interests are.
Most of these people are just depressed and universalize that experience onto everyone else. But the reality is that most people are glad they were born, and parents can reasonably predict how the lives of their children will be. People who can’t provide a good environment for their kids should abstain, but I would even argue that for those who can, having kids is morally good since it brings the joys of life to more people.
You are arguing that most people enjoy life, and those who predict that others’ lives will be full of suffering tend to projecting their own feelings onto those as yet unborn. The antinatalist might argue that, though historically this may have been the case, the circumstances are now different: climate change or the likelihood of nuclear war (for example) is sure to bring suffering hitherto unknown to us, for everyone in the coming generations. The debate would then be about (1) how certain this future suffering is, (2) whether there’s a type of suffering that makes any life not worth living (or whether the value of life even relates to what suffering it contains), and (3) how much suffering, or what kind of suffering, we can best predict for these future people. We can have these debates, but I don’t think it’s obvious that the reasoning of someone who disagrees with you must be “pants-on-head level”. These are serious questions that intelligent people can consider, and the antinatalist position is a serious position that you don’t have to be an idiot to arrive at.
The antinatalist might argue that, though historically this may have been the case
Historically, approximately half of children died before the age of 5.
But I also don’t think it’s fair to compare modern reproduction with historical, because the contexts are very different. For starters, it is more of a conscious choice now due to modern contraceptives.
Secondly, modern society (at least in developed nations) tend to place a significant value on human life. Look at how things like medicine and safety have improved over the past 100 years, and of course the huge drop in child mortality rates. There is much more consideration given to individual well-being. There is of course another angle to look at: maximizing joy vs minimizing suffering. Positive utilitarianism vs negative utilitarianism. Antinatalism clearly focuses on the latter.
I guess I’m specifically addressing the consent argument which I find very stupid. If you believe that future children will be subjected to horrible suffering, then it would make sense to abstain. But that’s not the main anti-natalist argument I’ve seen.
But I will say despite the popularity of doomerism I don’t think there’s much reason to think human life will be much worse overall than it was in the past. There will be incredible challenges and incredible joys and triumphs, just as there always has been. So this is more of a factual question, and I think it’s pretty clear on the facts that most people will continue living rewarding lives for the foreseeable future.
It’s more like the real problem here is extremism. Taking any belief to an absolutist and extreme degree is a problem. This also includes values and positions that are considered mainstream.
Not really. Just because you find something unethical doesn’t mean any of the shit you’re writing and implying here. You want people to think those random Redditors are murderers or would want to be but we both know that’s false.
I admit that I agree with the dude, but not to the point I’m going to start killing people over that belief.
We’re angry that you existed too bub.
Well that certainly wasn’t on my terrorism bingo card. What the fuck is this timeline we’re in?
This seems like mental illness with some terrorism on top. I’m willing to bet that a robust mental health care system could have prevented it.
Yeah, but who can afford one of those?
Bombs to blow up brown kids won’t just buy themselves you know.
But hear me out, what if the terrorist just went to church, and talked to the priest, for free?
(Yes, right-wing politicians really think like that)
nobody got my consent to bring me here
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.
How much more stupid can it get?
Well, if adults are trying this “I never asked to be born” shit I guess it can’t get much stupider.
I never asked to be born this stupid, but here I am
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.
The obvious problem is… it’s not possible to ask someone whether they would like to be conceived prior to conception.
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?
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 passed out at a party will wake up sooner or later. Their lack of ability to consent is temporary.
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.
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 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.
It’s not a question of whether being brought into existence is good.
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?
No parent seriously considered whether their unconceived child consented.
This is due to selection bias. One might presume that those who do give this serious consideration would refrain from becoming parents.
-
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.
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.
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
Canada needs to build a wall to keep the illegals out after US society collapses.
Removed by mod
He seems to deliberately chosen a day when the offices were closed, so perhaps he wasn’t trying to hurt other people. It would have been so much worse if this had been done on a weekday.
Indirectly or directly, the deep state created this kid. I got the same opinions too man, and I’d rather shoot my head off with a shotgun before I go around and roll in the mud like these fucking Yankee soldier boys. You literally cannot trust anything anymore. You have to have strong framework to see through all the bullshit. I would Google the Imperial Boomerang or in the Intelligence Department, they call it blowback. There’s also a book by Barbara Walters, How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them. She is an exCIA analyst. Anyways, no war with the class war.
Check yourself in, man. Jesus.
In case someone is confused like I was, that’s not the Barbara Walters, who has always been a journalist. Different Barbara.
Probably just another conservative nutjob terrorist.
you know, you could just read the fucking article
Just to clarify. This is misinformation. OP is lying. The New York Times and other news outlets reported the bombing the same day, then gave more details 12-24 hours later.
This person is a liar. This is disinformation.
Source (New York Times) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/us/palm-springs-explosion.html
Are you completely illiterate, or do you just make things up for fun?
THERE IS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOMBER AT THE LINK YOU PROVIDED. NONE.
Before accusing others of lying get your own fucking facts straight.
If this is accurate it’s way weirder than anything I had on my radar.
Why? We aren’t taking care of our people. I’m sure many of them feel the same way or close. Lots of people don’t want to live in misery, especially when they realize most of it is an actively created construct by others. If you combine that with the very common belief in an afterlife, it becomes a very obvious and likely path.
Could you explain how a belief in an afterlife is a factor in this? Wouldn’t be the other way because you would be held accountable for your actions?
To add to the other comment, the two concepts of an afterlife and punishment or reward are separate concepts and don’t have to coincide. Some faiths explicitly believe in heaven and not hell, and some neither.
Always remember when thinking about possibilities, given totally made up shit, the answer is always all possibilities exist and must be considered.
Oh he specifically targeted the site when there was nobody there.
I literally have no problem with this.
Hopefully antinatalism isn’t targeted by the MsM as a wedge issue for this, it’s an important ideology for sustainabily progressing humanity.
Antinatalism is an immature ideology that preys on vulnerable people. It should absolutely be contained and the people with those maladaptive ideologies should get the help they need.
Antinatalism isn’t a solution to any issues were facing today. It’s just an edgy ideology.
Hopefully this gets MSM to look at it closer and we can start addressing the problem.
Understanding that any child born today will suffer way more than any American has in a century and then choosing to have kids anyway is a selfish and malicious act.
That K line is approaching real quick.
One thing that has always seemed a bit ironic to me about any kind of anti-natalist is if they’re so sure that bringing another being into existence is cruel to that being, why don’t they kill themselves instead of trying to shame others or bomb clinics? Sure, they didn’t consent to being here, but there’s other options that don’t involve needing to stay here.
And no, this isn’t advocating suicide, but more calling out BS on the entire position because they do consent to remaining here.
why don’t they kill themselves instead of trying to shame others or bomb clinics?
IMO if our society made painless suicide achievable many would choose it. Even with a terminal medical condition, euthanasia is very expensive and nearly impossible even in places it is legal.
So the brain damaged fuck blows up the place that stops others from being born against their will. No wonder trump won - our citizens are fucking stupid.
An IVF clinic is not an abortion clinic.
You’re right on the “Our citizens are fucking stupid” though.
From what I’m seeing reported in US, they haven’t released the name, and mention “posted rambling online writings”
So, I’m glad I read my news from multiple sources, including here. Context is an important part of understanding what the hell is going on in the world.
Haven’t released the name; must be a white man.
No mention of “thug”, “gangster”, or any other racially-motivated descriptor, either.
Definitely a white dude.
I have seen this kind of statement in some other place multiple times… guess this guy really didn’t find any beauty in life. It is hard to take seriously that someone would really go there this far… he could have just killed him self
they normally call themselves anti-natalist instead of pro-mortalist… but it seem to be 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.you have the same arguments
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.
and his argument was “Imma go bomb some people.”.
that was his conclusion, not his argument.
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.
They are not the same thing
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
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.
yep. the only thing they hate more than their own existence is everyone else.
i’m kinda surprised we haven’t seen an anti-natalist go pro-mortalist sooner.
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.
