Sofia Vergara Pretends She Isn’t Being Selfish to Deny Children

It is understandable Sofia Vergara doesn’t want to raise children since she broke up with their father, but why should children be chattel property?

The ex-fiance of Sofia Vergara wants to raise his children. And he has some. But he is not allowed to raise them.

Nick Loeb was once engaged to a woman with a role on the TV show, Modern Family. Like many contemporary immoral couples, they didn’t wait until the wedding night. In fact, they conceived a couple of children. But that doesn’t mean that Vergara experienced nine months of pregnancy. Rather than conceiving a child to give birth, Loeb and Vergara had these embryos frozen. (I thought at first this meant the embryos were extracted from Vergara, but I suppose it is more likely the conception took place in a Petri dish or test tube or something equally clinical.)

Loeb is now suing to get the embryos and have them brought to term, presumably by being implanted in the womb of a woman he hires for that purpose. The New York Times actually granted him space to write his case (or have a ghostwriter do it). He was, of course, mocked by the media.

The problem is that Vergara and Loeb knowingly signed a contract that gave both of them the power to veto any decision to thaw out the embryos and bring them to term.

Vergara recently addressed the issue and decided to explain her decision to not allow her children to be given a normal life. Here’s the quotation from People Magazine:

“A kid needs parents,” Vergara said Monday “I wouldn’t imagine anyone saying that it’s sane to bring [into] the world kids that are already set up [with] everything wrong for them. It would be so selfish.” 

Right. Because bringing children into the world in an abnormal way just to possess in case you might later decide to bring to term wasn’t selfish at all. That was all about altruism and selflessness!

I think it is sickening the way celebrities can spin their self-centeredness into some kind of special virtue.

I don’t blame her for not wanting to have children with Loeb now, but she should have thought about that when she stupidly conceived with him.

[See also, “Failures In Analogies: Embryos Of People Comparable To Acorns.”]

If anyone had called her and Loeb “selfish” for conceiving and freezing the embryonic offspring, the entire world would have condemned that person for criticizing a “valid lifestyle choice.” It was their “right” to conceive test tube popsicle embryos.

So now these children are chattel property. How is slavery compatible with any view of basic human rights?

Of course, Liberals will claim that embryos are not people. They are just tissue. News flash: stuff that is just tissue is not in danger of growing into a baby when it is thawed out in the proper environment. Only people do that.

Those two embryos are humans and, once conceived, were and are the responsibility of their parents.

It is selfish to pretend that isn’t true. It is slavery. It is ultimately murderous because the only so-called ethic that allows for it is the ethic of legalized elective abortion.