Dad makes bizarre revelation about what IVF clinic suicide bomber son hated

The suspect in the California fertility clinic bombing was not a 'terrorist' or 'anti-life', but instead was 'anti-test tube baby', his father has claimed.

Guy Edward Bartkus, 25, detonated a car bomb that rocked the American Reproductive Centers building in Palm Springs, east of Los Angeles.

Authorities said Bartkus, who died in the explosion, left behind nihilistic writings that indicated views against procreation, an idea known as anti-natalism.

But his father Richard Bartkus has challenged that description, suggesting his son is not a killer or terrorist, but should instead be called a 'suicide bomber.'

'A terrorist is out to kill people, destroy life. He wasn't there to destroy life,' he told FOX 11. 'He was there against test tube baby. He was not anti-life, he was anti test tube baby.'

Richard said his son, whom he described as a 'bright kid' and 'computer', believed that 'people who had test tube babies they would never really love the child as their own'.

He also claimed that he does not believe Bartkus acted alone in the plot, although authorities have not released any information confirming that theory.

Saturday's explosion gutted the clinic and shattered the windows of nearby buildings along a palm tree-lined street.

Passersby described a loud boom, with people screaming in terror and glass strewn along sidewalks of the upscale desert city.

Authorities are working to learn more about Bartkus' motives. They haven't said if he intended to kill himself in the attack or why he chose the specific facility.

His writings communicated 'nihilistic ideations' that were still being examined to determine his state of mind, said US Attorney Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the area. In general, nihilism suggests that life is meaningless.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change

. . .In 2006, the South African philosopher David Benatar published a book which is widely credited with introducing the term anti-natalism. In Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, Benatar quotes the Greek tragedian Sophocles (“Never to have been born is best / But if we must see the light, the next best / Is quickly returning whence we came”) and the text of Ecclesiastes (“So I have praised the dead that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive; but better than both of them is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun”). These quotes suggest that the sentiments at the heart of anti-natalism have been around for a very long time.

In modern history, another strain of thought emerged, warning against the dangers of population growth. In the late 18th century, Thomas Malthus sounded the alarm that the population would outstrip the food supply. In 1968, a Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich published the bestselling book The Population Bomb and co-founded the organization Zero Population Growth (later renamed Population Connection), arguing that the growth in global population would lead to famines and ecological crisis. He also suggested that people have no more than two children.

One member of Zero Population Growth struck out on his own with a much more radical agenda. A man named Les Knight launched the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) with the goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed”, as stated on the website that he launched in 1996.

While Benatar also sought to discourage reproduction, his ideas grew out of different premises. The objective of anti-natalism, as Benatar sees it, is to reduce human suffering. Since life inevitably involves some amount of suffering, bringing another person into the world introduces the guarantee of some harm. He argued that “the quality of even the best lives is very bad – and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people.”

Benatar told me recently that he has heard from many readers of his book who “have often felt that they were alone in the world. It was a great comfort to them to read a philosophical defense of a view they found intuitively correct.”

Dana Wells, the Dallas-based YouTuber, felt validated by Benatar’s work. About five years ago, she reunited with her biological brother (she was adopted), and he grilled her about why she didn’t have children. Feeling annoyed after their meeting, she searched online for books – “I’m a reader. I’m a nerd,” she says – in hopes of finding out about others who didn’t want kids.

For the first time, she encountered the terms “childfree” and “anti-natalism”. She began “to see that this life game is an imposition”. For her, it was simple: “Living things can be harmed. Non-living things cannot be harmed.”

As “The Friendly Antinatalist”, she posts videos with titles like First American Use of the Term ‘Antinatalism’ and Can Parents Be Antinatalists? . .

This brings us to perhaps the most unexpected aspect of anti-natalism: taken to its logical conclusion, it implies that not only humans but all sentient beings should be spared from life. As Benatar writes toward the end of the book, “it would be better if humans (and other species) became extinct.” As a result, many, but not all, anti-natalists are vegans. (The Antinatalism page on Facebook has about 7,000 followers; the Antinatalist Vegans page has more than 13,000.)

The challenge for anti-natalists – especially those who believe that not only humans but other species would be better off nonexistent – is how to achieve their goals without imposing additional suffering.

While anti-natalists believe that life is a curse, climate activists are primarily concerned about inflicting the ecological state of the world of today – and especially of tomorrow – on a child.

In 2015, two American climate activists, Meghan Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli, founded a network called Conceivable Future. They organize house parties throughout the country for people to share their considerations about having children, given the realities of the climate crisis. They upload videos from these gatherings to their website and encourage others to post their own “testimony”.

In one video, a 31-year-old elementary school teacher says: “I feel such fear and guilt and shame and sadness already … I find the loss of animals and plant life, the loss of water and air, just sad.” Others are more concerned about inflicting a child – or rather the emissions the child would inevitably produce – on the world.” In another video, a young man asks: “Do I really want to bring someone else into the world who’s gonna consume those fossil fuels?”

The Conceivable Future co-founders do not advocate any particular choice about childbearing. Instead, they want to open the space for these painful conversations. “We had noticed that the climate movement really lacked heart,” Kallman told me. Drawing the connections between the issue and these intensely personal decisions was a way to illuminate the stakes of climate change. “Every successful social movement in history has been successful because people can see what it means for them,” Kallman said. “We see our job as giving people the emotional grounding to do the work.”

In March, the British singer-songwriter Blythe Pepino began organizing a group called BirthStrike, made up of about 600 people globally who refuse to have children as a result of the climate breakdown. Pepino has said that she wants to be a mother, but reluctantly decided that ecological circumstances were too dire. Like the founders of Conceivable Future, BirthStrike adherents don’t stand for population control but rather for calling attention to the severity of the climate crisis.

Anti-natalists and climate change activists have intersected in some ways, and each has drawn more attention to the other. Anti-natalist forums, for instance, often include information about how childlessness can reduce carbon footprints. But ultimately, the goals of the two camps diverge sharply. BirthStrike grew out of a group called Extinction Rebellion, which is protesting against the threatened extinction of millions of species, potentially including our own. By contrast, for true anti-natalists, extinction is the dream. . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.