James Talarico’s Biblical Support of Abortion: Point III

Hey Salty Lady

Audio By Carbonatix

Holy Mary, Mother…May I?

Here is the exact transcript of Talarico’s final point to Joe Rogan on the Biblical support for abortion.

And then the last, I think, story I would go to is the story of Mary.

Mary is probably my favorite figure in the Bible, the mother of Jesus, and she is an oppressed peasant teenage girl living in poverty under an oppressive empire as a Jew, and she has a vision from God that she’s going to give birth to a baby who’s going to bring the powerful down from their thrones, scatter the proud, and send the rich away empty. This revolutionary song that she sings—it’s called the Magnificat—and it’s actually been banned by certain authoritarian regimes because it is so radical.

But I say all this in the context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent, which is remarkable. Go back and read this in Luke. The angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do.

And she says, if it is God’s will, let it be done. Let it be. Let it happen. So to me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create.

Creation is one of the most sacred acts we engage in as human beings, but that has to be done with consent and freedom, and to me that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus.

So we go from:

“life begins with breath outside the womb…”

“Jesus made women equal…”

“Mary gave consent for the incarnation…”

bada bing bada boom—abortion is biblical.

Let’s go point by point.

Be Thou My Vision?

Some of y’all were horrified I would address Talarico—biblically I might add—as a wolf or compare his handling of Scripture to the snake of old.

And yet…

Did God give Mary a vision?

What translation shows that?

Nada.

Grammatically and narratively, it’s not a vision. The text simply doesn’t say that.

In fairness, maybe this was careless language and we should give James, the pastor/seminarian, a pass. Fine.

But this seminarian would say:

“Luke is precise and clear in his word choice on purpose.”

Gabriel came to visit Mary in the same way he came to visit Zechariah.

And speaking of honoring women—Luke is doing that right here.

You are being given a deliberate contrast between the male priestly response and the female lowly response.

One responds in doubt.
One responds in faith.

But neither are responding to a vision.

They are responding to Gabriel in the room.

Asked and Answered?

Did God ask for Mary’s consent?

Was God even there speaking—or was a messenger sent by God with a proclamation?

“Remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke,” James said confidently.

I’ll wait.

Did you find where God was present and conversing with Mary?

Oh wait, the angel came down and “asks Mary if this is something she wants to do.”

That makes more sense.

Let’s find that part.

I’m looking.

I don’t see anything in the text that suggests a question of any kind was asked.

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And the angel answered her,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God… For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Hiss. Hiss.

Did God really say that?

Grammatically, narratively… this isn’t in there.

Hence, the ANNUNCIATION.

Not the suggestion.
Not the inquisition.
Not the opportunity.

The news of Jesus is announced—proclaimed—declared.

These are not questions.

“You will…”
“He will…”

The Greek verbs are future indicative—pointing to certainties, not possibilities awaiting confirmation.

Now imagine all your “You WILL” statements being interpreted by your children as “WILL you?”

That would be cute for about thirty seconds.

And then judgment would come.

It’s the huge—and awkward if you’re wrong—difference between saying:

“Will you have a child?”

and

“You will have a child.”

Gabriel is prophesying:

The child will be great.
He will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of David.
His kingdom will have no end.

Each statement describes what God is going to do, not what Mary must decide.

And this is the error we see in the Christian creep to the left.

It subtly reverses authority and priority—placing the emphasis on what man does and receives, instead of what God commands and accomplishes.

Trust Me

Mary’s response confirms this structure.

She does not answer a request.

She asks a clarifying question:

“How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34)

Her question isn’t whether the event will occur.

It is how God intends to accomplish it.

After Gabriel explains the role of the Holy Spirit, Mary responds:

“Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)

That is not permission.

That is submission.

Gabriel announces.
Mary trusts.

Howl at the Moon

He’s a wolf if ever there were.

Like the snake of old, he took what God said and added here and edited there to frame a seminal passage in a way that invites man to see God differently than the text reveals.

It diminishes both Mary and God—and it is the opposite of pastoral.

Talarico removes power and authority from God and places it with Mary, turning her beautiful, incredible submission—placing her body and expectations on the altar in worship—into an option to be considered by the entitled.

And now instead of modeling our hearts and flesh being fully His, we get off easy.

We retained control.

Because all we gave was permission.

It uses modern language to diminish ancient truth.

What does consent mean to you?

And what happens when consent is not given?

Exactly.

My God—does that not make you want to vomit?

It replaces humility with pride. It replaces worship with collaboration.

We, the created, giving the Creator our consent—over His creation.
Over the fulfillment of eternal promises kept in Christ.

And then using that distortion to justify abortion.

He just made abortion a sacrament.

A damned sacrament.

A religious rite—holy and good.

He just gave permission for every young girl to wave off the weight and gravity of such a choice and trade it for the warmth of killing a baby while identifying with Mary, the mother of Christ, as she walks in the righteousness of consent and bodily autonomy.

It’s ghoulish.