Nick Loeb releases statement on embryo situation: ‘Life begins at fertilization’


To recap: Nick Loeb sued his ex-fiancee Sofia Vergara over the embryos they created while together. He wanted a baby and Sofia gave up some of her eggs. They even implanted some embryos into a 44-year-old gestational carrier a few times although the implantation didn’t “take.” There are still some girl-embryos left and Nick wants custody of them so that he can implant them in another woman and presumably raise those daughters himself. At first, all of the legal shenanigans and press coverage was done as John and Jane Doe, and with unnamed sources throwing massive amounts of shade. Then, over the weekend, Sofia’s lawyer came out and confirmed what we already knew – that Nick was suing Sofia over her alleged desire to destroy the embryos. Sofia’s lawyer said that Sofia does not want to destroy them… or implant them. She’s fine with just keeping them frozen indefinitely. Now Nick is speaking directly to the media.

Nick Loeb is speaking out about the lawsuit he filed over his frozen embryos created with then-fianceé Sofia Vergara in 2013. The businessman’s lawyer, Abram Moore, said in a statement to PEOPLE Monday that Loeb “has made every effort to arrive at a private resolution” with the Modern Family star, but was “forced” to file a lawsuit when they couldn’t come to an agreement.

Loeb claims that Vergara, 42, who is now engaged to Joe Manganiello, wants to destroy the two female embryos they created – a charge that Vergara has strenuously denied. In his statement, Loeb, 39 – who wants “to bring his daughters to term” – said that he wasn’t seeking to hold Vergara to “any parental or financial responsibilities or obligations” and would “give her the opportunity to be involved with the child in the future, should she change her mind.”

“I have always strongly believed that life begins at fertilization and that every embryo is a life on a journey towards birth,” Loeb said. “I created these two female embryos with the purpose of taking them to term and not destruction, because I have always dreamed of being a father. I take the responsibility and obligation of being a parent very seriously. Creating an embryo in the natural way can lead to parenthood obligations, even where a man doesn’t want to become a father. Where a man does want to become a father, and wants to impose no obligations on the other party, he should have that corresponding right. However life comes to be created, it should have no determination on either the rights of wanting to be or the requirements of having to be a parent.”

[From People]

Sigh…I think it’s tacky to fight this out in the press, and it feels like Nick has ulterior (political) motives, like he’s trying to get the anti-choice crowd to take up his cause. If this really is decided by a court somewhere, it will be interesting to see what case law is used and what case law is made for this kind of situation. I think Sofia is smart to take the position of “don’t destroy the embryos but don’t implant them either.” That way Nick can’t say the embryos are in any “danger.” And seriously, if he wants to be a father so badly, why doesn’t he move on, date a lady and get her knocked up the old-fashioned way?


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

139 Responses to “Nick Loeb releases statement on embryo situation: ‘Life begins at fertilization’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. kaligula says:

    HOW MUCH is Sophia regretting the decision to do that right about now???! I feel for her. This is going to drag on and be a difficult fight. What is he doing this for, really. His attorney has to know that this doesn’t make him look very good….

    • bettyrose says:

      Or smart, since implantation in the uterine lining is a necessary pre-condition for a viable fetus, is it not? Otherwise, don’t statistics show that something like 1/2 of in utero fertilizations (to say nothing of lab fertilization numbers) don’t implant? Uuuuuuugh at this argument.

    • Talie says:

      Now that she’s with Joe, she must see what a horrible mistake this man was. What a vindictive nutcase. He wants to drag her down and that’s just sad.

      • aims says:

        I bet she’s thanking her stars for not having to parent with this guy. If he’s grasping at straws for the embryos, I can’t even imagine having to work with him on a daily basis. Again,he’s ridiculous.

      • bella says:

        the argument of when life begins aside…
        this is a blatant attempt on loeb’s part to take down sofia.
        it’s disgusting.
        using a very private matter to humiliate her.
        who wants to implants embryo’s concevied with another woman into someone else to have those children once the relationship is over?
        it makes NO sense other than to destroy her and continue to have a hold on her.
        and i’d be concerned for those children – if they actually came to be – and any other children this man may father.

      • AntiSocialButterfly says:

        I think the issue is more that he is somewhat obsessive, and sees this as a way to maintain some kind of connection to her which is creepy at the very *least*.

    • mernymerlyn says:

      Think about how much she would be regretting it if she had gone through with it.
      This guy is such a nightmare. Let it go, let her go. He just wants to be bound to her in some way, especially financially.

    • Sabrine says:

      She must be wishing she’d never gotten herself into this fiasco. Still, it shouldn’t really be an issue. Both have to agree on any decision made regarding the embryos. That should be enough. There is no basis for a lawsuit, a trial or anything else. This is what the agreement was and this is how it should stand. This Loeb sounds like a total loser who can’t let go. Can he not find a woman to bear his children?

    • Annie says:

      He’s just butthurt that she’s happily moving on with someone else. This guy was a terrible partner. He cheated a lot, abused drugs. This is nothing but a very embarrassing tantrum. God knows he would not make a good father, and I doubt he truly wants it. This is the equivalent of a butthurt ex making outrageous claims on Facebook just to create drama publicly and try to ruin the ex’s happiness. Except he has money and embrios involved, but the motive is the same: to cause distress on a very happy couple because he hasn’t moved on.

      • doofus says:

        and what I love is that EVERYONE is coming to that same conclusion…

        …that is, it has nothing to do with a pro-life stance and everything to do with him being butthurt about getting dumped after being the one “in control” for most of the relationship. and that it’s a way for him to continue to (try to) control her and remain tethered to her somehow.

        WE SEE YOU, D-bag.

      • lucy2 says:

        Yeah he is clearly not realizing how bad all this makes him look. No one is falling for his sob story.

    • Bluebear says:

      Not trying to stealing your thread, I’m just really curious and I’m worried this won’t be seen otherwise: is Nick Loeb related to Richard Loeb, a la Leopold and Loeb, 1920’s serial killers? He looks remarkably like him.

      • BooBooLaRue says:

        okay I had to Google this, and oddly enough they do look related. . .who is Nick Loeb in the first place?

      • Kosmos says:

        Just looked him up for interest….he is listed as an American Businessman, son of wealthy Loeb family, founders of brokerage firms and global financial services. His father was the 1981-1983 U.S. Ambassador to Denmark. He was raised by his father in NYC Nick has been involved in producing films, and nearly ran for U.S. Senate. He and his Swedish model first wife divorced. ANYWAY, I’m sure he has many connections and lots of cash. This is likely why Sofia tried to make it work with him—did we ever doubt that?? But he does sound like a piece of work and almost scary if he would go to this length publicly–he’s probably used to getting what he wants and feels humiliated that she left him and is with another man. I’m sure it’s revenge, wow.

  2. Shambles says:

    Can we just put him in a room with Sarah Palin until they politically-charged-word-salad each other to death?

    • Crumpet says:

      Oh yes please!!

    • Rachel says:

      Amen. I doubt he really cares about the embryos. His statement is just too well-crafted. Sounds like he’s just laying the groundwork to win over a particular voter base.

      • Amanda says:

        Rachel – yes, and I think what he doesn’t realize is that particular pro-life voting base doesn’t particularly approve of IVF to begin with for this exact reason — possible embryo destruction. That he’s taking this stance is odd because based on his viewpoint the embryos shouldn’t hav been created in the first place.

    • Jules says:

      Next he will be whining on Fox News.

    • Other Kitty says:


  3. Kiddo says:

    I think life begins at spermatozoa. HOLD THAT IN dude.

    • mia girl says:


      And to further your position kiddo… in the immortal words of Elle Woods Esq: “Why now, why THIS sperm? And could we say that all his nocturnal emissions are then to be considered reckless abandonment?”

    • Sixer says:


      On the reckless abandonment front, could I claim laundry support from an ex?

    • AntiSocialButterfly says:

      “Every sperm is sacred; every sperm is great!”

  4. Sarah says:

    They’re not alive, they’re frozen!

    • Shambles says:

      So are you saying that he should… Let it Goooo, LET IT GOOOOOO?!

      (Sorry Internet, I couldnt resist)

      • mimif says:


      • PunkyMomma says:

        @Shambles – you’re evil 😘

      • mia girl says:

        Shambles – Ha! somehow, the joke still works for me.

        Disclaimer – “I may be in a state of denial that I have grown tired of this movie” says the person who had to buy Frozen on Ice tickets for her 8 year old last month – a full year before it actually comes to town!

      • Erinn says:

        Heh, I haven’t even seen Frozen, but lately I’ve been singing “let it gooooo, let it goooooo the cold never bothered me anywayssssss” because the husband keeps building fires when it’s not cold enough to make it worth while, and then I have to keep opening windows. It’s the only lines I know from the song, and I know they don’t go in that order, but I’m not letting it die until the overheating of the house stops.

    • dr mantis toboggan says:

      Talk about frosty relations
      I’m ashamed that’s it’s been 3 days and that’s the best I can come up with.

  5. Crumpet says:

    I firmly believe that life begins at fertilization as well – I honestly don’t get those who don’t see it. I am not looking for a fight, but I am a scientist and fully understand how life develops. It begins and then develops until it is stopped. By man’s intervention or nature’s.

    But I also firmly believe that he is making this statement only to promote himself. So, ugh.

    • Sixer says:

      But life isn’t the same thing as personhood, right?

      • Crumpet says:

        ‘Personhood’? What does that even mean (I honestly don’t know?)? An embryo is a human life. It’s not like it is going to develop into a chicken or something.

      • Tarsha says:

        It is a *potential* human life.

    • Sarah says:

      Agreed. I believe life begins at fertilization. I am also pro-choice. I’ve long thought that the only difference between a baby and a fetus is desire. If you want the baby, it is a baby from the second it is inside you. If you don’t want the baby, it is a fetus. I find Nick Loeb so sketchy that I cannot attach any positive motives to his efforts on behalf of these babies. I also find Sophia Vergara to be less than genuine nearly all the time as well. Perhaps these two embryos dodged a bullet as I don’t think they have won the parental lottery. I also wish more people who do IVF would donate their embryos rather than freeze them in perpetuity or destroy them.

      • Crumpet says:

        I also don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Of course I think women should have a choice over their bodies. But when your body becomes the source of life for another human being, it gets very tricky. I am just grateful I have never been there.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Actually there are some biological facts that weigh in here. “Fetis” has a really medical definition, as does “pregnancy.”

        Whatever personal spiritual beliefs a person might have about when life begins, there would be no humane to enforce restrictions on abortion– it would necessitate the complete disregard for the woman’s personhood and safety. How can one even know if a woman has a fertilized egg in her body, so as to protect its rights? Pregnancy tests only work if you are pregnant. How would one even begin to enforce such definitions On people?

    • Wren says:

      All living cells are alive, so in a way I agree with you. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the zygote is composed of living cells, and so on and so forth.

      But I don’t believe that an embryo is a person. It is a potential person, it can develop into a human, it carries all the blueprints and mechanisms to become a human, but it hasn’t yet. There’s a long journey between ball of cells and being a human, many things can go wrong. So I disagree with his argument.

      • Crumpet says:

        The sperm and egg are cells that are alive and each carries one half of a human genome. When they combine, the genome begins to direct human development. It becomes a human embryo. It’s actually seems pretty straightforward to me.

        The cells of your body are alive, but don’t have the tendency to begin another human life on their own.

        I’m off to work now – time to put on my lab coat and wield a pipette! Bwah-ha-ha!

      • Lucrezia says:

        “The cells of your body are alive, but don’t have the tendency to begin another human life on their own.” I have to quibble. I think the line is more blurry that you admit.

        What about teratoma? They can grow eyes or teeth! But definitely not “alive” in the sense that we’re talking here – not a potential person. But exactly how do they differ from a very deformed fetus?

        What about cloning? (Imagine a few decades of technological advance.) If I can take one of your skin cells, regress it to an embryonic cell and clone you: are your skin cells then potential babies? (Since we shed a million skin cells a day, that’s a lot of miscarriages!)

        Personally, I draw the “personhood” line elsewhere (at the point the fetus can survive outside the womb). But I’m well aware that medical advances make that a shifting goalpost, and I can easily understand the logic for drawing the line at a different spot. But I don’t see how anyone can say the line is black & white. The line is going to be blurry – wherever we put it – because “life” or “personhood” is a fuzzy concept to start with.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        To believe that life begins at fertilization is to believe that my twin sister and I share the same life. If the zygote is a person, we are then the same person. I can say with 100% certainty, we are not the same people and we don’t share a life.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Well, it doesn’t really matter that you’re a scientist since the next scientist might disagree. What I truly do NOT understand about this argument re frozen embryos is HOW is it then okay to freeze life? Or – to go a step further – to freeze a baby? For anyone who believes life begins at conception/fertilization, none of this is okay. Except if you differentiate between life and a baby but most people who believe this don’t seem to do that.

      According to him it’s fine to freeze your kids for a while then until it’s convenient for you???

    • Lee1 says:

      I think that very much depends on what you mean when you say life. Scientifically, you could make the argument that upon fertilization there is life in the way that bacteria or parasites have life. You could also make the argument that there is only potential life the way an apple seed has potential life. Without a hospitable environment, it will never grow and mature. Many women use birth control that prevents implantation. I view that much more similarly to an apple seed not being planted than to some sort of aborted life. Furthermore, some zygotes will go on to implant in the wrong place or they will have severe chromosomal abnormalities that prevent further development or that will result in them producing molar pregnancies. They absolutely never would have produced a baby. Were all of these equally alive just because they were fertilized?

      There is also a spiritual/moral/legal component (however you want to think of it), which is undoubtedly what Sixer was referring to above about personhood. Without higher cognitive functioning or the ability to self-sustain outside of the womb, is that really life in the same way that you or I have life? Personally, I don’t believe it is.

      I miscarried at 6 weeks pregnant back in January. I am not a religious person, so I don’t believe there is some angel baby watching over me as I often see on grief and loss message boards. I 100% wanted that baby, but I also don’t feel like I lost a baby. I was heartbroken, and I grieved, but I grieved for the idea of what could have been. I am now almost 11 weeks pregnant again. I still very much want this baby and the longer I am pregnant, the more attached I feel and the more difficult it would be if I miscarried. But I still don’t think that if I were to lose this baby tomorrow it would be the same thing for me as if I lost them at 24 weeks or in childbirth or as a 2 year old. Other women may feel differently, and I understand that. But for me, there is a difference. I think that touches much more closely on the idea of personhood.

      • Wren says:

        I agree with you. An embryo is alive, has the potential, or tendency if you will, to develop into a human but it hasn’t yet. It’s not self-sustaining and, while alive, it isn’t yet a person. So there’s “life” and then there’s “personhood”. To me these are different.

        And I’m a scientist so my opinion matters! Not really since you can gather a group of scientists in a room and they will each have differing opinions on just about any given topic.

      • serena says:

        +1 I feel the same way as you do.
        By the way I’m sorry for your loss, and congratulation! 🙂

      • Sixer says:

        Thanks, Lee. Yes, of course that’s what I meant by personhood.

        Life can be a technical term. It can be a philosophical term. It is not helpful when determining what should or shouldn’t be done with regard to contraception, termination, in vitro and other techniques and all the rest of it. Those arguments centre on personhood.

        People have different opinions about when personhood begins, but the law makes a decision. Some people think the POTENTIAL for personhood (eg a zygote) is equal to personhood (a human being post-birth or a viable foetus in most people’s eyes). The law doesn’t see it that way currently.

      • doofus says:

        so sorry for your loss…and MUCH luck with your current pregnancy!

      • MtnRunner says:

        “Without higher cognitive functioning or the ability to self-sustain outside of the womb, is that really life in the same way that you or I have life?”

        What constitutes self-sustaining? Being able to breathe on their own? What does that mean for those who live only by modern technology? Would a child be less of a person just because they are in the womb at 26 weeks but become a person when at 26 weeks they’re hooked up to a machine in the NICU? Does this standard diminish the meaning or value of “life” for those who lack cognitive (or emotional or physical) functioning outside of the womb? What does this mean for the lives of those who because of disease, disability or old age cannot sustain life apart from a machine? The waters get muddied when we’re defining what personhood is and should be considered in light of those that require assistance to stay alive, no matter what age.

        I’m sorry for your loss and wish you a healthy, full term baby, @Lee1.

      • Lee1 says:

        Thanks everyone, it is much appreciated. 🙂

        The reality is that medical science has only advanced to the point where a fetus of about 22-24 weeks is able to survive at all outside of the womb. I didn’t mean to imply that any or all assistance should never be required. Only that prior to that gestational age, there is literally no way to survive outside of the womb. That will likely change with medical advancement, but for now that is the reality.

        Also, higher cognitive functioning contains a multitude of things. All creatures with the ability to form any type of memory, willful actions, perceptions, associations, attention, etc. display some degree of higher cognitive functioning. Again, prior to about 22-24+ weeks gestation, research indicates that there is no regular brain activity in the cerebral cortex and no evidence of perceptions. The brain structures necessary for higher cognitive functioning just aren’t sufficiently developed or specialized yet.

        I think the question of how that applies to individuals who require assistance to stay alive is a completely separate issue from when personhood begins but I also don’t think their personhood is incompatible with what I stated above.

      • Ash says:

        “I think that very much depends on what you mean when you say life. Scientifically, you could make the argument that upon fertilization there is life in the way that bacteria or parasites have life. You could also make the argument that there is only potential life the way an apple seed has potential life. Without a hospitable environment, it will never grow and mature. Many women use birth control that prevents implantation. I view that much more similarly to an apple seed not being planted than to some sort of aborted life. Furthermore, some zygotes will go on to implant in the wrong place or they will have severe chromosomal abnormalities that prevent further development or that will result in them producing molar pregnancies. They absolutely never would have produced a baby. Were all of these equally alive just because they were fertilized?

        There is also a spiritual/moral/legal component (however you want to think of it), which is undoubtedly what Sixer was referring to above about personhood. Without higher cognitive functioning or the ability to self-sustain outside of the womb, is that really life in the same way that you or I have life? Personally, I don’t believe it is. ”

        Excellent response, Lee. I agree.

        Sorry for your loss, but congratulations! I’m wishing you good luck. 🙂

    • INeedANap says:

      Potential for life is not the same thing as life. You say you’re a scientist — an embryo does not satisfy all the criteria to be considered a life form.

      Homeostasis, metabolisis, and growth are only achieved through the host; it cannot adapt or reproduce; and it cannot move or survive independently.

    • MtnRunner says:

      I think it’s tricky to determine when a “potential” human becomes a person with their own right to live in and outside of the womb. The laws are all over the place — when a pregnant woman loses her baby on account of someone else’s actions (such as assault), some laws hold the perpetrator guilty of murdering the unborn child, some don’t. Morality isn’t determined by what is legal, but we hope that the law reflects what is morally or ethically right.

      It’s such a emotional thing to carry a child inside of you and some feel that connection with their unborn child earlier than others. That shouldn’t be the determination for personhood either. I see both sides of the argument and feel for those women who conceive when they don’t want to. Bearing and raising a child is a HUGE cost and burden of responsibility and it understandable why many want to end their unplanned pregnancies. I can only imagine how difficult it is to be in that position.

      But as I do with those outside of the womb, I always feel most protective of those who are unable to speak for themselves and helpless protect themselves from harm. It just seems that no one can look to a specific moment and say when the unborn child is a person unless you’re looking at either conception or birth. No one has made an argument to my satisfaction that gives a clear case for anywhere in between.

      Not arguing any particular position, just highlighting how difficult it is to determine what is morally right, apart from one’s religious belief that will make that determination for them.

    • ISO says:

      I’m shocked that anyone would put their future offspring through this risk. Frozen embryos? I’m just flabberflustered.

    • Tarsha says:

      Then you would know that until a certain date, there is no heartbeat and no nerve receptors or responses. So without those at the moment of fertilisation, it can be argued that it is not a life. Many, many scientists say that until there is a heart beat at least, it is not a life.

  6. Pri says:

    I always knew Nick and Sofia’s relationship would have that “moment” (ie cheating scandal, drugs) that would blow up in the media, although embryos was not what I had in mind…

    • kaligula says:

      Yeah, maybe that moment is still yet to come, thanks to how long this will probably go on and how much dirt could possibly be dug up in the process….

      • J.Mo says:

        She should out him as unfit to parent because of drug use even if she incriminates herself, but then I wonder about the other dirt they have on each other. Some gossip says he was her best customer when they got together. I’m NOT saying I believe this but it would be a lot to have hanging over her head from that guy.

  7. Wooley says:

    Hes a trust fund kid and this is probably the first time he’s ever been told “no” and can’t handle it.

  8. Original T.C. says:

    He doesn’t just want ANY ladies eggs, he wants the one from a beautiful lady like Sophia so his daughters’ are beautiful. Child engineering. Maybe Sophia is classier than me but I would start a rumor that baby boy shoots blanks and can’t keep a woman that’s why he’s stuck on ‘dem embryos. Embarass him so he leaves you alone because this guy is straight up creepy.

  9. The Original Mia says:

    He can have children with someone else. I don’t understand why he’s trying to keep them. Unless it’s to keep Sophia in his life and his name attached to hers. Very bizarre.

    • BlueNailsBetty says:

      I think he’s a classic abuser and will do anything to control the woman who dumped his controlling ass.

      • Msmlnp says:

        I think you are spot on! I am very doubtful that his motives are altruistic at all. Seems more like a way to torture and control someone perhaps previously under his thumb,

      • mia girl says:

        Sounds about right.

      • **sighs** says:

        Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking when I read this. It’s a way to hold something over her. Having their children through a different carrier, but if she wants to be in their life in the future… She needs to stay far away from that guy.

      • lucy2 says:

        Fully agree. Otherwise he’d just move on and, if he truly wants to be a father (and that’s a big if, I think this is all a game to him), then he has plenty of other options that don’t involve her. This all only came up when she got with someone else and he probably realized she was gone for good.

  10. launicaangelina says:

    He is a very unattractive man and while I love green eyes and dark hair (like my hubby), his eyes are super creepy. There’s something off with him.

    • morc says:

      His eyes are also blue, in case your’s don’t work.

      • launicaangelina says:

        Ha! I guess my sleep deprived eyes deceived me. My 10 day old newborn can be pretty demanding. Anyway, my husband’s eyes shift from greenish to blueish all the time. They tend to stay on the green side so I think that’s why I’m seeing green. Either way, this guy’s eyes are CREEPY. *shudders*

  11. minx says:

    So creepy. What was she thinking?

  12. aims says:

    This guy needs to stop. Totally absurd and frankly a little tacky. He also feels a little needy to. Absolutely ridiculous.

    • anne_000 says:

      I agree that he’s tacky.

      What is he fighting about? Sophia’s not destroying the eggs. So there. That should be the end of it.

      It’s crazy for him to continue to fight so publicly when he’s already won anyways. There’s nothing to fight about. He just seems insane at this point.

  13. RobN says:

    I also believe life begins at conception. However, these two had several eggs fertilized and I don’t for a minute think that had the first one “taken”, that he would have been so insistent that all the rest also be carried to term.

    As it is, this is all covered in their contract, he knows it, and it’s just an attempt to make her life more difficult as she moves on with a different man. He’s an a-hole and I’m sure she’s wishing she hadn’t wasted so much time on him.

  14. Cee says:

    If life begins at fertilization, as he believes, then why did he leave them frozen all this time? Why not implant them the moment they were fertilized?

    I’m sorry, but I hate flawed logic. They’re frozen, not dumped in a bin. How can he force her to have them implanted, even if it is in someone else’s womb? And then baiting her with “she has no obligations”, as if she would walk away from the potential child.

    This man makes me sick.

  15. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I respect his right to believe life begins at whatever point. But then why did he agree to have the eggs fertilized and say they would not be used or destroyed without the consent of both parties? He didn’t have to sign that, and it definitely takes the possibility of their not being used into account. It doesn’t make sense to me. I think he’s full of it.

  16. Betti says:

    He has that ‘I’m certifiable crazy stalker’ look in his eyes.

    Does anyone else think it weird that it’s female embryos only? He clearly has control issues with women and god forbid, what kind of father he would be to a daughter – that really gives me the ick!

    • FingerBinger says:

      That they’re female embryos isn’t that strange. Sofia had a son and my guess is she wanted a daughter.

    • Lola says:

      They froze the female ones only? What happened to the male ones?

  17. savu says:

    This just doesn’t feel genuine to me. It feels fishy and baity to the pro-life crowd. Does he even really want these embryos? I don’t even think so. I think he’s just a d-bag who will hold onto whatever association with Sofia possible, and whatever “upper hand” he can “win” their breakup in the media.

  18. Me too says:

    Oh really? They are frozen!!! I can’t with this hypocritical nonsense.

  19. Dash says:

    This is messed up. What would happen if he had these implanted in a surrogate and then she miscarried. I feel like he would blame her and find a way to blame Sofia as well.

  20. Marianne says:

    Whether or not you believe in life begins at fertilization, Sofia definitely should get say in whether they can be implanted in someone else. Afterall they’re her eggs.

  21. QQ says:

    I TOLD YA’LL This A-hole was Angling for a political Pro-Life looks

    at This Rate left to white dudes that don’t have to carry a fetus to term Life will begin at ” we were horny” or “I Thought about it”

    • INeedANap says:

      Cosigned on both counts. These dudes just want to exert total control.

      And Loeb has more agendas than a Staples.

  22. Jaded says:

    They should just donate them – keep the identities of the birth mothers and/or adoptive parents confidential and let this issue go away. He’s definitely working this from a politically self-aggrandizing angle and a vengeful need to throw his ex-girlfriend under the media bus.

  23. Angie says:

    OHHH that precious man juice!!! Pure LOEB GOLD ;-D

  24. TX says:

    I don’t think Sophia’s position is helpful in this case. Leaving them frozen forever is, ultimately, the same as destroying them. They won’t be brought to term either way.

    • embertine says:

      Agreed, but if the contract states that the agreement of both parties is needed for either implantation of destruction of the embryos, then leaving them frozen indefinitely is the only way she can stop this creep appropriating her genetic material for his own purposes.

    • Dirty Martini says:

      I agree with you. Leaving them frozen indefinitely makes no sense on any level…..I accept that was the so called “agreement” but it is a stupid agreement. I think they need to deal with this now one way or another, and this may very well wind up being a landmark court case regarding reproductive law for the future .

      THink about how this can play out in the future if it isn’t addressed now. I can’t help but wonder how many indefinitely frozen embryos are there in the world being maintained indefinitely…..and if not addressed with specific protocols in this type of situation, how many more there could be.

      I see a sci-fi movie out of that. If a couple goes this route, there really ought to be an agreement about how long the embryos are maintained in frozen state before being used or destroyed. I hate to make it sound like a “shelf life” but alas that’s a crass way of putting it.

      FYI–I’m pro choice for everyone, and against abortion for me. I do believe life begins at conception, but I have to admit I think conception is when the embryo is embedded into the uterine wall, not a petri dish.

  25. Greenieweenie says:

    I don’t think all biological life is personhood, in the sense that it is imbued with consciousness and inalienable rights…but also in the sense that I don’t think all biological life is equal. I think any woman who has had a late term miscarriage would take offense to the notion that a miscarriage several days after implantation is somehow an equal loss. And what this douche seems to forget it that life at the point of fertilization is at best a possibility. It is NOT a promise.

  26. lolalulu says:

    if every embryo is on a journey towards life, then why hasn’t he put donation/adoption on the table? go thru a reputable agency with a lawyer and give them to a worthy couple. therefore, your embryos have a chance of a future with a normal functioning family (outside the spotlight of your dysfunctional breakup with your ex-gf). these people are not stuck in this situation, they have options and yet they choose to drag out the drama.

    • Ange says:

      Well he’s saying he wants to raise them and she doesn’t want them at all so adopting them out doesn’t seem like a viable option. I can see Sofia’s point, even without any obligations I wouldn’t enjoy knowing I had biological children out there that I never wanted.

  27. serena says:

    What a selfish idiot and douche, he’s feeling butthurt so he’s saying stuff like this. How can a man who cheated with lots of women talk like this? If he wants a baby so badly that he can adopt one or just have one with a different woman. One who WANTS to be the mother of his children.

  28. Meatball says:

    He is totally creepy. The little bs at the end about how he will let Sophia in the child’s life if she changes her mind made my skin crawl. There are no good or selfless intentions with this guy at all. Why can’t he leave these embryos alone and go knock up some other chick who doesn’t know any better? Sophia really dodged a bullet and not having children with him is looking like a blessing. I cannot imagine the custody battle he would drag her through if they had a child.

  29. Malificent says:

    If life begins at conception, then Loeb should be arrested for child abuse, as one does not stick one’s children in a freezer for an indeterminate period of time. This is completely political pandering to a socially conservative electoral audience.

  30. roxy750 says:

    Seriously, he does not believe or if he does he doesn’t give a rats ass about the eggs, he is doing this to be a complete psychopath and doesn’t want to give up on Sofia. He’s a freak. He treated her like garbage, abused her, was a class A DOUCHE and he is just trying to control her and not let her go. He’s vile.

    • Ally.M says:

      Exactly. He probably thought she was going to go back with him again. He makes my skin crawl, creepy, creepy guy. Also the timing of this is suspicious, she’s promoting that movie with Reese, probably her biggest role yet, and going to marry Joe this year.

  31. J.Mo says:

    A “resolution.” The resolution would mean them having a baby. Sorry Nick, move on.

  32. MSat says:

    Why would a guy want to implant the embryos of his ex-fiancee into another woman – and what woman would want that? I’m trying to imagine being his new girlfriend or wife, and agreeing to have some other woman’s embryo implanted into me. I’d want to know, what’s wrong with MY goods – why do you need to hang onto something from someone you have no ties to? It’s weird.

    • Amy says:

      Considering how he’s acting I’m also going to say he’s not going to be with a woman who allows him to have a child that’s biologically not hers. The next woman Nick Loeb ends up with is going to want children that are biologically his and hers so that when she’s done tolerating him she will get support for the child.

      And if he tried to skip out on child support she’ll drag him for all his worth by bringing up this little stunt again.

    • Lola says:

      One exactly like Sofia who would tolerate anything for money.

  33. mootwo says:

    he is just creepy

  34. lucy2 says:

    I hope their contract was very air tight and he doesn’t get anywhere with this, he shouldn’t be able to use them without her consent and a pre-agreed custody/financial agreement. I can’t imagine how upsetting the whole thing must be.

  35. CH2 says:

    Gawd, people are so disgusting. I can’t imagine acting this petty or my husband acting this petty… good lord…

  36. Veronica says:

    I am confused by the cognitive dissonance of people who claim that life is so precious that it begins at the moment of fertilization and is good enough to sit around in a freezer for a decade in an arrested state of development.

  37. Jayna says:

    An embryo isn’t viable without being in a woman’s body. And I can’t begin to tell you how many don’t result in a pregnancy when implanted for couples, like quite a few of my friends and/or co-workers, and like previous attempts by you and Sofia with your surrogate with the other embryos. As others have said, if the first embryo had taken, you would never have tried again, like you had to, nor used the one or two remaining embryos left. There is no way Sofia at her age was ever going to have more than one child and you agreed to that.. You would have been fine with the other embryos languishing in the freezer or being destroyed, then, and not said a word.

    Give it up, you tool. Move on and find a real relationship and have a family if that’s what you want , instead of stalking Sofia.

  38. Coco says:

    I feel sorry for poor Sofia, this lunatic is obviously trying to control her and cause her distress in revenge for her moving on.

    One good thing to come from this is by announcing his crazy to the world future would be girlfriends will be spared his derangement because they will know to avoid him.

    He’ll have to settle for someone as pschyotic as himself and hopefully that will be karma.

  39. Ruyana says:

    I don’t believe a word that comes from his mouth. He’s just trying to punish her for moving on by causing the maximum amount of pain he can bring. If he wants to be a father so badly he could find a woman willing to be the mother. And how did they only get female embryos? Was that deliberate? What happened to the males, if there were any?

  40. Guest21 says:

    And yet she’s trying with her new guy now, the PR hookup. Didn’t she learn anything about getting married first before making a trip to the doctors? She’s very insecure if she only has more children because the GUY wants kids.

    She’ll have this same fight in a few years time but with Manginello…

  41. Question everything says:

    If Loeb was right then no laboratory could ever destroy their frozen embryos. They would have to keep them forever or get them implanted.

    I do believe that there is some kind of financial motive behind this guy’s moves.

  42. Other Kitty says:

    What a jerk. I agree with his statement BUT the law does NOT agree. The law says otherwise. He should just go away.

  43. Amanda says:

    If this guy is so pro life he should have never agreed to IVF in the first place. Most hardcore prolifers are anti IVF (hard line Catholics for example) because so many embryos are created and lost/destroyed in the process. This guy is clearly just out of his own motives, let’s not pretend he ever cared about the embryos.

  44. Kelly says:

    What a freakshow

  45. JRenee says:

    Looks like 28 years of child support and a lifetime connection to Sofia if he gets his way, wow.

  46. J.Mo says:

    I had thought she froze her eggs, which if possible would have been a much better idea. I didn’t know they were fertilized (I have no idea about this stuff)

  47. Kay says:

    This guy is such a creep and weird looking. I don’t know what Sofia ever saw in him. Why the hell does he want a child from his ex? Seems like he is just trying to hold onto the past and get money out of Sofia.

  48. FrannyFeminist says:

    pro life vs pro choice talk is over anyway *adjusts hipster glasses* the name of the game is harm reduction. it does more harm than good to prohibit pregnant females from access to abortion, so, let’s just do what we can to prevent harm.

  49. Jayna says:

    He’s scum. And what does his allegations about her hitting him, calling him names , blah, blah, put in the Complaint have to do with his legal right to the embryos? It’s all about blackmailing and humiliating Sofia.

  50. PeaBea says:

    This is most disgusting, right-wing and ridiculous argument I have ever heard in my life (and I sadly come from a country where I cannot legally have an abortion).

    Does she need his permission to destroy these? If not, she needs to destroy them. Who needs the kind of fans not destroying them keeps anyway.

  51. Maud says:

    While I find Nick repulsive, do you blame any man who would want her gorgeous genes in a daughter? He will never find a woman like Sofia.

  52. Michele says:

    This guy cheated on her relentless allegedly and now is super concerned about some frozen fetus and is SUPER pro life? Repulsive idiot.