Summary Of Loeb's Embryo Dispute

The Ethical Issues Of The Loeb Vs. Vergara Embryo Dispute

This paper seeks to answer questions raised by Nick Loeb’s “Sofia Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos Have a Right to Live” (The New York Times, 29 April 2015). The key issues identified in his article are the importance of family, procreation, pro-life vs. pro-choice, and moral duty. In my evaluation of these issues, I believe that the rights of a person may outweigh another. The prospects of what is a “Good” family life for the child also give me great inhibition towards Vergara instead of Loeb.

The issue of rights in Loeb and Vergara’s dispute sets the framework for who has greater “entitlement” in deciding the fate of their embryos. In Loeb’s op-ed, he argues that his desire
In his article, Loeb lacks to mention any infertility or inability to find another partner to create life. It is safe to assume that he is a regular functioning man who can seek a partner to fulfill his parenthood objectives. This gives him weak contest to the rights of the embryo to develop. Vergara has greater rights over the decision of the embryos. This statement can be supported by Sherry Colb’s “Frozen Embryo Disputes” article. In the article, Colb states that a woman endures abundant distress to extract the eggs that are needed for the embryo in which she compromises her “bodily integrity” (Colb). Colb also states, “The woman undergoes repeat hormone injections, trans-vaginal ultrasounds, and an invasive procedure in which her eggs are “harvested,” all in order to become a mother. (Colb)” This contrast between a man and woman’s pain and effort to procreate should determine that women have a greater right over the embryo. Since Vergara experienced such “prior suffering”(Colb) in comparison to the male’s mere ejaculation of sperm, it is clear on this issue of rights that Loeb has close to none. In Tamar Lewin’s “Anti-Abortion Groups Join Battles Over Frozen Embryos” article, it states; “Most courts have treated embryos as marital property, often favoring the party that plans not to use the embryos, emphasizing a right not to be forced to procreate (Lewin).” It can be said that because of Vergara’s greater right over the embryo, it
As such, Loeb is not yet a parent and has no right to exhibit his Pro-life beliefs in this scenario. Loeb also states that keeping the embryos frozen is “ tantamount to killing them (Loeb).” This can be swiftly rejected with the statement in Margaret Olivia Little’s article “The Moral Permissibility of Abortion” in which Little states that “ For a fetus, as the phrase goes, to live is to be receiving aid (Little 348).” That being said, a frozen embryo is not a fetus that is receiving any form of assistance to supplement its growth into a human. It is merely being preserved in its current stage as a plate of cells. Therefore, an embryo is not a “life” and does not have needs that are to be fulfilled (Little