The Soapbox: On Nick Loeb & His Whiny Demand For Ex Sofia Vergara’s Frozen Embryos

Sofia Vergara’s ex-fiancé is determined to get the last word on the whole frozen embryo fiasco. To recap: Back when actress Sofia Vergara and Nick Loeb were engaged, they had embryos created out of her eggs and his sperm. Two viable embryos were then frozen for possible future use. When they split, Vergara wanted nothing to do with the embryos anymore while Loeb wants to keep them for future use. He ended up filing a lawsuit against Vergara to prevent the the embryos from being destroyed or staying in frozen storage forever.

Now he’s penned an op/ed that The New York Times somehow saw fit to publish, giving Loeb the space to whine on some more about the whole thing. The op/ed reads like a bratty, scorned lover making one last ditch effort to plead his case.

Loeb brings up the point many in the comments section are making, but his answer is rather shaky:

Many have asked me: Why not just move on and have a family of your own? I have every intention of doing so. But that doesn’t mean I should let the two lives I have already created be destroyed or sit in a freezer until the end of time.

But here’s the thing, frozen embryos aren’t technically “lives.” Sure, they may have the possibility of turning into actual life, but they’re not babies. In fact, frozen embryos don’t even have a huge success rate, with one study showing a 34 percent clinical pregnancy rate and a 30 percent live birth rate. The embryos themselves aren’t lives, like Loeb is trying to push. Sure, they’re a smidge more “potential for life” than a woman’s egg that is shed during menstruation, or the remnants of a man jerking off every Wednesday night to an episode of “Modern Family.” But not by much.

Interestingly, with over 400 comments currently on the op/ed, the response is completely varied. There are those who side with Loeb and think he should have access to the embryos, while others tell him to build a bridge and get over it. “It” being Sofia in this case. Then there’s this comment, which is pretty much my favorite. “RM” from Vermont chimes in:

While they are potential lives, they are not now lives. Nor are they “children”. Children cannot be kept in a freezer. They would die. The fact that these potential lives can be kept in a freezer, but would perish if taken out of a freezer and brought to room temperature, should demonstrate the difference. I suppose, through cloning, the DNA in my fingernail clipping could become a child. But that does not make my fingernail clipping a child.

But none of this matters to Loeb, who tries to pull at the ol’ heartstrings a few times throughout his piece. First, he laments that the woman who raised him recently passed away without getting to meet a child of his. He then lets readers know that his father is 85, and hopefully will live long enough to meet his grandchildren. Still, that is not a reason to use an embryo of an unwilling participant. Loeb then tries another tactic, referencing the abortion an old girlfriend of his had when he was in his 20s. He often thinks of what that child could have been. But, unlike an actual pregnancy (whether intended or not), these embryos are not implanted anywhere or growing. It really is a struggle to understand why Loeb continues to press for these embryos when he can go on his merry way, get an egg donor/surrogate or even a woman willing to have a baby with him and do it the old fashioned way. Preferably with somebody who actually wants and consents to procreating with him.

Instead,Loeb is insistent on keeping two embryos made with his ex’s eggs. An ex who happens to be on a hit TV show and has a movie coming out and makes bank money. But even if Loeb’s motives are pure of heart, is writing a whiny, manipulative op/ed in the Times the best way to go about accomplishing his goal? He details the various fertility treatments that they went through, and provides an awful lot of personal detail that I doubt Vergara is stoked to have been made public.

Despite whatever sob stories Loeb brings up throughout his op/ed, he pretty much shoots himself in the foot by admitting the only thing that matters in this case: “We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent.”

That should be it. Vergara is clearly not consenting to the embryos being used, so end of story. Yet, as evidenced by this op/ed, it seems like it may only be the beginning.

[NY Times]