Having a child should be the happiest time in a couple’s life, waiting for the birth of their unborn, vetoing the naming list and the nursery’s colour palette. But, life isn’t that simple when it comes to a famous actress, a high powered businessman, two frozen embryos and contractual agreement…
On 30th April 2015 Nick Loeb, ex-partner of Modern Family star Sofia Vergara, pleaded in the New York Times to take possession of two frozen IVF embryos the couple created in 2013:
“In 2013, Sofia and I agreed to try to use in-virto fertilisation and a surrogate to have children. We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent.”
Loeb believes in keeping the embryos frozen indefinitely, Vergara’s preference, would be ‘tantamount to murder’. His strong pro-life op-ed is primarily he says down to his Catholic attitudes.
This carefully crafted plea is something you would stereotypically imagine from Vergara, after becoming engaged to her new partner Joe Manganiello recently. Not the destitute plan of a business man, but a jilted boyfriend perhaps?
Scratching away the emotion, some significant issues regarding Loeb’s motive are brought to life.
As a Christian myself, I do ponder as to why he would engage in IVF in the first place? To my knowledge the church prohibits vitro-fertilisation and acts of contraception including intercourse outside of wedlock as “contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children”.
Pope Benedict “told researchers that IVF embryos have a right to life even before implantation,” another violation towards the church from Loeb if the couple would have stayed together.
It would seem that Loeb is willing to discard his religious morals when it suits him. Sure, he may have changed religious stance since 2012 when the contract was signed, enabling him to fight for reproductive justice.
Whatever you think of the couple and their rights (or wrongs) this is no longer about the embryos but an agreement, a contract.
His claims to have “wanted to keep this private, but recently the story broke to the world” is also questionable: if he wanted to keep it private, why is he airing his dirty laundry in the black and white print of the American press and doing it well?
Although Loeb is the only person to know the real motif we do have to wonder what he was hoping to achieve, except to damage Vergara’s reputation and cause severe heartache. But, the real question is why in fact the New York Times published the op-ed; how is this in the interest of the public? Surely this hunt against Vergara should be condemned?
Some of the coverage you find on Cultured Vultures contains affiliate links, which provide us with small commissions based on purchases made from visiting our site.
