Pussy Inflation

If you google the name Nick Loeb, the first result is titled, "What’s Sofia Vergara doing with this guy?" At the time the article was written, Sofia Vergara was already forty-one years old.

She still looks attractive enough on television, but her beauty is fading fast. The Post insists that she could "have her pick of the world’s most eligible bachelors," like "a towering NBA star." She does have a higher net worth than Loeb. The higher status a woman has, the harder it is for her to marry up and be happy. Even without her elevated status, the woman is always portrayed as "settling."

Yet Vergara is a peasant compared to Loeb, the son of a diplomat who is also related to the both the Bronfman and Lehman fortunes. Vergara's father was a cattle rancher, no disrespect intended.

Sofia Vergara has made it to the top, so everything she does is amplified. Right now she is being sued by the embryos that her and Loeb created a few years ago. Loeb and Vergara signed a contract stating that the embryos would be destroyed if one or the other party died.

Did it not occur to them that they might separate in life?

This case interests me for two reasons: paternal rights and fetal rights. Abortion activists ought to watch this case very closely, because of the precedent. You can leave your estate to an unborn child, so the unborn do have legal and civil rights.

All the attempts to legislate person-hood upon the unborn are moot if "Emma" and "Isabella" are given standing in a civil court.

During Tim Conway, Jr.'s radio show yesterday, Conway stated that "something wasn't right" about this case. The thing he was concerned about was that Loeb was using these embryos to make a claim towards child support.

Let's say the roles were reversed. Let's say the woman was concerned that the man would destroy the embryos. That the woman was concerned she would lose her chance to bring her genetic offspring into the world. If Conway said that she was a stereotypical gold-digger trying to line up child support, he would be ridiculed as sexist.

But notice how easy is it to assume that Loeb is insincere.

There is legal precedent for custody of embryos, and it was settled nearly thirty years ago in favor of the husband, who wanted to destroy the embryos. Does this precedent imply the parent who doesn't wish to procreate has the stronger case?

Stephanie Caballero, a lawyer quoted in the Daily Beast article, says that "There’s a very strong public policy throughout the country that you do not force someone to be a parent against their will."

Unless they are men.