Last week, we were talking about how Nick Loeb was secretly suing ex-fiancée Sofia Vergara over embryos they had frozen together during their relationship. She wants the embryos destroyed since they’ll never be used, and Loeb, still butthurt over the fact that the ultimatum he gave her backfired and ended up with her moving on very happily to Joe ‘Best Sex Of Her Life’ Manganiello, wants to keep them so that if he eventually finds another woman, he can use the embryos and turn them into real, live children. While that was bullshit enough, at least it was (sorta) being carried out privately. But now, someone at the New York Times thought it would be a great idea to give this dumbass a national platform from which to spew his garbage.
Here are some “highlights” from his op-ed:
In 2013, Sofía and I agreed to try to use in vitro fertilization 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. The form did not specify — as California law requires — what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.
So… hang on here a minute. Loeb admits that he SIGNED A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT saying that they could only have these kids if BOTH PARTIES AGREED, and now he doesn’t really like the way that’s playing out for him since he’s single, so he wants the law to change in his favour? I almost hope this is a joke… but alas.
My lawyers have identified 10 other cases in the United States in which a parent tried to have a fertilized, frozen embryo taken to term against the wishes of an opposing parent. In eight of those cases, the parent seeking custody lost. In the other two cases, one in Pennsylvania and one inIllinois, a woman was awarded custody of fertilized embryos over the man’s objections. In both cases, the woman had undergone chemotherapy treatment and the embryos were her last chance to have a biological child; judges ruled that the woman’s interest in becoming a parent outweighed the man’s interest in not becoming a parent. In the Illinois case (now on appeal), the judge found that the form the couple signed was not the binding contract, and instead enforced a verbal promise the man made to help the woman have children.
Oh yes, please! Let’s definitely use two terrible rulings (because indeed, the two “exception” cases should not have happened) to defend our own personal desires despite the fact that it’s legally and morally wrong! Sure thing!
But as we began to discuss other potential surrogates, it became clear once more that parenthood was much less urgent for her than it was for me. We had been together for over four years. As I was coming on 40, I gave her an ultimatum. When she refused, we split up.
A few months later, I asked her to let me have the embryos, offering to pay for all expenses to carry our girls to term and raise them. If she did not wish to share custody, I would take on full parenting responsibilities and agree to have her declared an egg donor. She has refused. Her lawyer, Fred Silberberg, has told reporters that she wants to keep the embryos “frozen indefinitely.” In my view, keeping them frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.
Here’s the thing, Nick. Parenthood is something that she – as the “mother” and therefore the biological vessel who would carry your imaginary spawn – would need to consent to. She had other priorities in life and you didn’t like it and you split up. Now you’re kicking yourself and playing the creepy ex who’s basically doing anything to try and fuck with her present happiness since it’s not with you. Scumbag.
I’m sorry, but I don’t for one second thing this asshole believes that never implanting embryos – which are NOT EVEN ACTUALLY EMBYROS since they certainly aren’t “in the process of developing”, as the dictionary definition states – is tantamount to killing. That’s his way of appealing to the pro-lifers to make this part of the MRA movement which… bye. Don’t forget Nick Loeb is an aspiring politician. This is basically the worst, and thankfully, it’s unlikely to ever gain ANY kind of traction in the legal system.
P.S. Also, “our girls”? I can’t. I really cannot.