In a new New York Times op-ed, Sofia Vergara’s ex-fiancée, Nick Loeb, wrote about his desire to be a single parent to two frozen embryos he created while with Vergara.
“A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects. Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?” Loeb wrote in the piece. “These are issues that, unlike abortion, have nothing to do with the rights over one’s own body, and everything to do with a parent’s right to protect the life of his or her unborn child.”
Loeb wrote that he and Vergara created two female embryos in 2012, but when one didn’t take and a surrogate miscarried another, they tried again a year later. After creating two more female embryos, Loeb wrote that he and Vergara “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.”
According to Loeb, he feels that keeping the embryos frozen “indefinitely”—which is what Vergara’s attorney, Fred Silberberg, said in a statement to People earlier in April—is the same as killing them.
“Many have asked me: Why not just move on and have a family of your own? I have every intention of doing so,” Loeb wrote. “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.”
Representatives for Vergara would not comment on Loeb’s op-ed when reached by EW. Silberberg, however, did release a statement about Loeb to People on April 17 after Loeb filed a lawsuit against Vergara.
“The claims made against Sofia Vergara by Nick Loeb are uncredible [sic] and hold no merit,” Silberberg said. “Vergara has never wanted to destroy her embryos. […] Vergara has never suggested that she wished to have the embryos destroyed. She has always maintained that they be kept frozen, a fact of which Loeb and his counsel have always been aware, despite Loeb’s statements to the contrary.”