Sofia Vergara wants to kill her daughters - where are the pro-life Latinos?

I am a Latina.  I am fighting for my frozen babies.  I wasn't always pro-life.  I'd say in the past decade my mind changed.  Once I saw my two boys, who started as embryos, grow inside me and be born, it changed my whole perspective.  But there are many in the Latin community that have a deep seeded view of life beginning at conception.  It is rooted in religion.  A religion that, in my estimate, still runs through the heart of most Latinos.  So now we have Sofia Vergara.  A self-proclaimed Catholic, Latina and a superstar.  But, when it comes to her daughters (frozen ones), she wants them dead.  And the Latino community seems to back her.  Why?  Is it her money?  Her looks?  Her popularity?  Are these things really important when a person's character is one of destruction of her own offspring?  Nick Loeb, who is fighting for his daughters, is an unlikely hero in all of this.  He is a rich man.  Jewish.  And has a checkered past, like me, where he wasn't always pro-life.  I'm mystified by the lack of real discussion in the Latino community about this issue.  Most publications I read seem to back Vergara, saying she shouldn't be forced to be a parent.  Okay, but what about life beginning at conception?  Where did that go in the Latin community?  I hope as Latinos we are not being selective on when the rules apply.  They apply to everyone.  And Nick Loeb should have our respect, not our scorn, for trying to knock down the Latina princess who has been on a pedestal, all the while trying to keep her daughters in their frozen prison.  And just because she says she wants to keep them frozen indefinitely doesn't make anything better.  Um, they will die and she knows it.  So, keeping them frozen is paramount to killing them.  Get a clue Latinos.  You are backing the wrong horse.

Can a State Order the Death of Someone's Offspring? Apparently, yes.

It's Thanksgiving day and although I am grateful for all the blessings in my life, I am also reflecting upon the appellate court's decision to sentence my embryos to death.  I finished reading a very cold and disheartening article by Above the Law called "Cold Leftovers: Can a State Require that Extra Embryos Be Implanted?"  It reveled in the fact that the court didn't force my poor, defenseless ex-husband to have to bring the embryos to birth, even though we had an agreement, even though we went through the IVF process to expressly bring the embryos to birth, even though I consider them my children.  This poor man with a Master's degree who attended all the doctor's appointments and agreed to bring two or the four embryos to birth (who are our twins) and agreed to cryofreeze the others with the intention of having more children, now is allowed to walk away and leave these other two siblings of my children to rot.  I think it's amazing how this court's decision is being hailed as a victory for "individual's rights" and preventing "government intrusion" when it is actually the opposite.
First of all, the individual's rights who have truly been trampled on is my rights to have my OWN offspring and my embryo's rights (as living human beings).  It was not their fault that we decided to combine our DNA voluntarily and with deliberate thought to bring them to birth through the IVF process.  The court summarily dismisses any rights they may have or that I may have under Missouri Law and says they are not interfering by NOT enforcing the agreement, which leads me to my next point.  NOT enforcing an agreement that is signed by both parties (under the law that is acknowledgment of the agreement) is actually the definition of "government intrusion" into private agreements.
For those of you who are not convinced that the court didn't go to great lengths to undermine a private decision (made, by the way, when everything was going swimmingly), consider this: The court created new law (yes legislating from the bench) in order to NOT allow me to have my embryos.  Under Missouri law, if they were really considered property, then factors such as who was maintaining them and who wanted them would've been taken into consideration.  But NOOOO, they instead created a new category of property called "property with special character" in order to not give them to me.  If we were talking about any other property, I would've received them no problem, because I could've shown I paid for their maintenance and I wanted them and my ex didn't want them.  So, the Missouri Court of Appeals gave themselves a black eye on this one.  Not only did they say that Missouri's law to protect life "at conception" (when sperm hits egg) was not applicable, they also went to great lengths to invalidate a VALID agreement and sentence by two innocent babies to death.  Way to go Missouri Court of Appeals.  I am sure they are eating turkey today and are with their "loved ones" without a thought to how they deprived me AND my sons of ours.