Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

So ignoring Mary's age, which we do not know and therefore cannot determine if she was under-age by whatever age of consent we choose to consider, is our difference of opinion on whether her consent was legally valid or whether she would be considered in a legal case to have been coerced, based on the text in the story? My opinion is we can't reach a legal conclusion based on the wording in the text, as there is not enough information to determine valid consent from a legal perspective.

I disagree - and again ignoring the age issue, from the text there is plenty of evidence that there cannot be valid consent. For example:

1. There is no indication that Mary has a choice and is free to choose whether or not to become pregnant. In order legally to avoid a claim of battery or more likely negligence it must be made patently clear to someone considering, for example, an elective medical procedure that it is for them to choose.

2. Where there is a clear power relationship active steps need to be taken to avoid pressure and soft coercion whereby an individual perceives that they must acquiesce to the opinion of the person in a position of power. There is one hell of a humdinger of a power relationship going on here. In fact Mary considers herself to be the servant of the person telling her what will happen.

3. Emotionally charged situations can mitigate against valid consent - if someone is scared, for example, if may mean that they are unable to freely choose between options. The text indicates that Mary is afraid and just saying 'don't be afraid' won't mitigate against this.

4. Lack of information - from the text, Mary clearly doesn't understand what is going on and there is virtually no information provided - this would never meet the legal standard of adequate and sufficient, as for example there is no mention of 'alternatives' - like Mary not becoming pregnant!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that applies to countless medical procedures and we have guidance on those too.

All the other procedures are for health reasons presumably? Non-therapeutic circumcision is an instance where it is not for health reasons, where a child can still consent to it.

The reason why I think circumcision isn't a great example to use for discussion on valid consent and/or authorisation by parents under best interests is that it is a very unusual case and there are considerations that aren't usually part of the standard approach to consent/authorisation. As I've pointed out, almost exclusively circumcision requires both parents agree - this in the case normally.

Yes and we were discussing the issue of Mary's consent in unusual circumstances, including the issue of whether throwing a God into the mix automatically means undue influence was brought to bear, invalidating the consent.

I was pointing out that even where a child has been advised by parents about circumcision, the guidance indicates that this does not automatically invalidate the child's consent despite the power dynamics of parent and child and it being a non-therapeutic procedure for cultural or religious reasons.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I disagree - and again ignoring the age issue, from the text there is plenty of evidence that there cannot be valid consent.

I disagree that there is evidence from the text to conclude anything on the issue of consent.

For example:

1. There is no indication that Mary has a choice and is free to choose whether or not to become pregnant. In order legally to avoid a claim of battery or more likely negligence it must be made patently clear to someone considering, for example, an elective medical procedure that it is for them to choose.

2. Where there is a clear power relationship active steps need to be taken to avoid pressure and soft coercion whereby an individual perceives that they must acquiesce to the opinion of the person in a position of power. There is one hell of a humdinger of a power relationship going on here. In fact Mary considers herself to be the servant of the person telling her what will happen.

3. Emotionally charged situations can mitigate against valid consent - if someone is scared, for example, if may mean that they are unable to freely choose between options. The text indicates that Mary is afraid and just saying 'don't be afraid' won't mitigate against this.

4. Lack of information - from the text, Mary clearly doesn't understand what is going on and there is virtually no information provided - this would never meet the legal standard of adequate and sufficient, as for example there is no mention of 'alternatives' - like Mary not becoming pregnant!

All this indicates is that the authors did not include any information on this because this was a story and not something to be used to decide the issue of legal consent.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because I don't know whether you really are a professor.

Nor does anyone else on these MB except me - well perhaps the mods would be able to unpick this, but they shouldn't be doing this. But you seem to be the only one obsessed with not believing me. Why, it is really, really odd behaviour.

Though it is true that I could accept it as an act of faith in the absence of evidence.

I don't see it as a matter of faith - more one of courtesy - why would I do anything other than accept that you are a female muslim brought up in a different faith. But courtesy cuts both ways, or at least it should.

I don't think it matters though - I don't consider your arguments to carry more weight even if you are a professor.

They don't carry more weight because I am a professor per se, but I think they do carry more weight when those opinions are backed up by a level of professional knowledge and expertise that comes with being a professor (but of course only in the fields in which I have expertise).

If you want to know about cancer do you not think that the opinion of an eminent professional cancer specialist might just carry more weight due to their years of built-up knowledge and expertise compared to someone who has spent the afternoon as an armchair googler.

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree that there is evidence from the text to conclude anything on the issue of consent.
All this indicates is that the authors did not include any information on this because this was a story and not something to be used to decide the issue of legal consent.

I agree - the authors weren't really interested in consent whatsoever.

But that doesn't mean that we should somehow accept (as Vlad wishes us to do) that the text contains robust evidence that there was consent. It doesn't - it doesn't come close to indicating that there was consent and largely the text we have suggests there was no consent.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nor does anyone else on these MB except me - well perhaps the mods would be able to unpick this, but they shouldn't be doing this. But you seem to be the only one obsessed with not believing me. Why, it is really, really odd behaviour.

As I said previously:

I wouldn't say it was an obsession - more a nice game to play to pass the time - e.g. a bit like these https://lifehacker.com/11-of-the-best-mindless-mobile-games-you-never-knew-you-1847504307

I don't see it as a matter of faith - more one of courtesy - why would I do anything other than accept that you are a female muslim brought up in a different faith. But courtesy cuts both ways, or at least it should.
They don't carry more weight because I am a professor per se, but I think they do carry more weight when those opinions are backed up by a level of professional knowledge and expertise that comes with being a professor (but of course only in the fields in which I have expertise).

When you post links to the professional knowledge and expertise, I often look at them. I don't need to know whether or not you are a professor in order to read and try to understand the links you post.

If you want to know about cancer do you not think that the opinion of an eminent professional cancer specialist might just carry more weight due to their years of built-up knowledge and expertise compared to someone who has spent the afternoon as an armchair googler.

Depends on what information the eminent professional cancer specialist linked to if they were on an anonymous internet forum.  I wouldn't just take their word for it on the internet that they were an eminent professional cancer specialist and I would attempt to critically assess their opinions, regardless of their claims of professional expertise. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree - the authors weren't really interested in consent whatsoever.

But that doesn't mean that we should somehow accept (as Vlad wishes us to do) that the text contains robust evidence that there was consent. It doesn't - it doesn't come close to indicating that there was consent and largely the text we have suggests there was no consent.

I do not know whether Vlad  thought there was robust evidence. Nor do I know if he was disputing a conclusion by another poster that there was robust evidence of a lack of consent. I can't be bothered to go back and look.

I disagree that the text we have suggests no consent. I don't think there is sufficient information on that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree that the text we have suggests no consent.

Presuming you mean valid consent (not that there is any other form) - the text certainly fails to provide any evidence of valid consent. The key reason being that there is nothing to suggest that Mary is actaully being offered a choice for her to make, rather than being told what will happen to her.

But then I guess assessing the process for obtaining valid consent isn't something you've given much thought to VG, whereas I spend quite a lot of my professional time doing exactly that.

[Dicky Underpants]

As I said previously:

I wouldn't say it was an obsession - more a nice game to play to pass the time - e.g. a bit like these https://lifehacker.com/11-of-the-best-mindless-mobile-games-you-never-knew-you-1847504307
When you post links to the professional knowledge and expertise, I often look at them. I don't need to know whether or not you are a professor in order to read and try to understand the links you post.
Depends on what information the eminent professional cancer specialist linked to if they were on an anonymous internet forum.  I wouldn't just take their word for it on the internet that they were an eminent professional cancer specialist and I would attempt to critically assess their opinions, regardless of their claims of professional expertise.

Would you also mindlessly and childishly continually try to wind them up? So you have your doubts about the Prof really being a prof. We get that. We got it the first time you said it ages back. To keep banging on about it makes you sound a bit odd, and a bit - sad.
You strike me as a slightly better educated version of Vicky Pollard. Apparently your "Yes" means something like "Yeah but, no but, so SHAAUP"

[ProfessorDavey]

I wouldn't say it was an obsession

Seems like that to me - and a rather tedious and discourteous one at that.

When you post links to the professional knowledge and expertise, I often look at them. I don't need to know whether or not you are a professor in order to read and try to understand the links you post.
 
Depends on what information the eminent professional cancer specialist linked to if they were on an anonymous internet forum.  I wouldn't just take their word for it on the internet that they were an eminent professional cancer specialist and I would attempt to critically assess their opinions, regardless of their claims of professional expertise.

You seem to have a rather odd view about what knowledge and expertise entails - it isn't just about posting interesting links - frankly anyone can do that. It is about having a level of knowledge and expertise that can be directly imparted, rather than via a third party link. I think you'd be pretty unimpressed if your cancer doctor didn't actual allow you directly to benefit from their knowledge of cancer and treatment options, but sent you off to do your own homework without providing their knowledge directly.

Of course when you are a specialist within a field you tend to work within the realm of specialist professional literature which can be pretty off putting to the lay person.

So I could directly you to Medical Law by Kennedy & Grubb which remains one of the most respected and comprehensive texts that covers legal issues of consent. It is, however over 2000 pages long with tiny dense text that gets tinier when reporting case law - a veritable cube of a book. However I suspect that most people would find it completely impenetrable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I have addressed the question asked - you just don't like the answer.

“Addressing” and “deflecting from by disappearing down rabbit holes” are not the same thing. I guess we’ll never know then whether you prefer the morality of the impregnating god of the bible story or the morality of modern Western societies. Oh well. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I disagree that the text we have suggests no consent. I don't think there is sufficient information on that.

Yes we have. The story concerns an all-powerful, universe-creating god who sends an “angel” to tell an underage (according to various Christian commentary sites) Palestinian servant girl what “will” happen to her. On the bare facts of that story as presented, by modern standards the issue isn’t that valid consent wasn’t given – it’s that valid consent could not have been given.

Again: imagine that your local paper ran a story about a headmaster impregnating one of his 14-year-old pupils. Would you also respond with: “I disagree that the text we have suggests no consent. I don't think there is sufficient information on that”? 

Why not?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey - you really are clutching at straws here Vlad. Firstly you will no doubt be aware that 'cousin' is simply one translation - others use 'relative', so there is no solid evidence that Elizabeth was actually Mary's cousin.

But even if she was, it is perfectly possible for cousins to have 25 or more years difference between them, particularly in a world where women had a lot of children, starting very young. And, of course if 'cousin' also covers second cousin, cousin first removed etc (all of which would be covered by the generic term cousin) then even greater age differences are entirely possible.

So it would be possible but atypical for Elizabeth to not be a first cousin thus it would be possible but atypical for Elizabeth and Mary to be so distant in age.

And yet your case is based on typical age of betrothal. A clear case of hypocrisy, humbug and special pleading on your part

[ProfessorDavey]

So it would be possible but atypical for Elizabeth to not be a first cousin thus it would be possible but atypical for Elizabeth and Mary to be so distant in age.

But we have no evidence that Elizabeth was her cousin - that is likely to be sloppy translation.

The word in Greek is συγγενής - that translates to relative, not cousin.

So on the basis of the original Greek Elizabeth was simply a relative which makes you argument about age difference completely irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

VG,

Yes we have. The story concerns an all-powerful, universe-creating god who sends an “angel” to tell an underage (according to various Christian commentary sites) Palestinian servant girl what “will” happen to her. On the bare facts of that story as presented, by modern standards the issue isn’t that valid consent wasn’t given – it’s that valid consent could not have been given.

Again: imagine that your local paper ran a story about a headmaster impregnating one of his 14-year-old pupils. Would you also respond with: “I disagree that the text we have suggests no consent. I don't think there is sufficient information on that”? 

Why not?

There is also another bit which we haven't addressed yet.

When Mary questions how this could happen, the angel says 'no word from god will ever fail'. So it is pretty clear that god's word is that Mary will become pregnant and that is what is going to happen, because 'no word from god will ever fail'.

She isn't being offered any choice in the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we have no evidence that Elizabeth was her cousin - that is likely to be sloppy translation.

The word in Greek is συγγενής - that translates to relative, not cousin.

So on the basis of the original Greek Elizabeth was simply a relative which makes you argument about age difference completely irrelevant.

Are you saying then that a cousin is not a relative?

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet your case is based on typical age of betrothal. A clear case of hypocrisy, humbug and special pleading on your part

So we have demolished your argument on Elizabeth and Mary on the basis that this is a mistranslation.

So what is left is special pleading on the basis of exceptionalism on your part that someone Mary would not be of a similar age to most girls betrothed to be married within that societal structure.

And actually that she was not actually married but engaged to be married suggests she might be younger still, on the basis that if the typical age for marriage was 13-14 then clearly girls would be younger than that when engaged but not actually married yet.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you saying then that a cousin is not a relative?

No but not all relatives are cousins. Your argument is based on Elizabeth and Mary being cousins, but that isn't what the text actually says - it just says they were relatives. Sure they could have been cousins but we have no evidence to support this, but Elizabeth could just as well have been Mary's great Aunt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I disagree - and again ignoring the age issue, from the text there is plenty of evidence that there cannot be valid consent. For example:

1. There is no indication that Mary has a choice and is free to choose whether or not to become pregnant. In order legally to avoid a claim of battery or more likely negligence it must be made patently clear to someone considering, for example, an elective medical procedure that it is for them to choose.

2. Where there is a clear power relationship active steps need to be taken to avoid pressure and soft coercion whereby an individual perceives that they must acquiesce to the opinion of the person in a position of power. There is one hell of a humdinger of a power relationship going on here. In fact Mary considers herself to be the servant of the person telling her what will happen.

3. Emotionally charged situations can mitigate against valid consent - if someone is scared, for example, if may mean that they are unable to freely choose between options. The text indicates that Mary is afraid and just saying 'don't be afraid' won't mitigate against this.

4. Lack of information - from the text, Mary clearly doesn't understand what is going on and there is virtually no information provided - this would never meet the legal standard of adequate and sufficient, as for example there is no mention of 'alternatives' - like Mary not becoming pregnant!

You are ruling out any consent to God and this means we are shaking hands with Calvinism and it’s determinism. However we could also appeal to Molinism where God knows what the will of someone will be and, applied to this situation, here God is going to someone he knows will cooperate with the plan and give the consent of verse 38.......would you mind typing verse38 in full in your reply, thank you.

In terms of fear that obviously and in the text subsides and certainly there is no sign of it in the Magnificat.

[ProfessorDavey]

In terms of fear that obviously and in the text subsides and certainly there is no sign of it in the Magnificat.

Which are words attributed to Mary by some author (we don't actually know who) nigh on 100 years after the event. There is no credible evidence that Mary ever uttered those words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No but not all relatives are cousins. Your argument is based on Elizabeth and Mary being cousins, but that isn't what the text actually says - it just says they were relatives. Sure they could have been cousins but we have no evidence to support this, but Elizabeth could just as well have been Mary's great Aunt.

You yourself have come up with a contingent answer recognising they could be cousins and it is an atypical solution. And we are now back to appeal to the typical.A cousin is a relative as you say.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are ruling out any consent to God and this means we are shaking hands with Calvinism and it’s determinism. However we could also appeal to Molinism where God knows what the will of someone will be and, applied to this situation, here God is going to someone he knows will cooperate with the plan and give the consent of verse 38.......would you mind typing verse38 in full in your reply, thank you.

So let's be clear shall we.

According to the text a young girl (we don't know quite how young) is told by god that she will become pregnant. According to the text she is offered no choice in the matter, indeed the angel rather sinisterly warns that 'For no word from God will ever fail' - in this case the word in question is Mary becoming pregnant.

Mary then submits to the authority of god - v38 in full '“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.". This isn't consent - it is at best acquiescence by a person submitting to the authority of someone else (in this case god) have been clearly told that what god says will happen ... err ... will happen ('For no word from God will ever fail').

[ProfessorDavey]

You yourself have come up with a contingent answer recognising they could be cousins and it is an atypical solution. And we are now back to appeal to the typical.A cousin is a relative as you say.

But not the only relative - your argument was that Mary must be older because Elizabeth was her cousin and was at the end of childbearing age. That argument only cuts any ice (and even then pretty thin ice) if Elizabeth is her cousin. But the correct translation is 'relative' - Elizabeth, as I've pointed out could just as easily have been her great Aunt.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are ruling out any consent to God…

Yes, and not only that but ruling out the possibility of “consent to God” for reasons that keep being explained to you. By modern Western standards on the bare facts of the story as presented valid consent could not have been given. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So let's be clear shall we.

According to the text a young girl (we don't know quite how young) is told by god that she will become pregnant. She is offered no choice in the matter, indeed the angel rather sinisterly warns that 'For no word from God will ever fail' - in this case the word in question is Mary becoming pregnant.

Mary then submits to the authority of god - v38 in full '“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.". This isn't consent - it is at best acquiescence by a person submitting to the authority of someone else (in this case god) have been clearly told that what god says will happen ... err ... will happen ('For no word from God will ever fail').

The word Almah means a young woman so we can ask why you have opted for young girl.
God, in the Molinistic view, has not in this case chosen a Jonah or a Judas but someone who is quite capable of understanding the intellectual, spiritual theological and personal ramification and consents in the words you have outlined prior to it happening.

When explaining a plan many people talk in the manner of the angel. I’m sure football managers talk about what the team will do.

Mary submits to the authority of God? I’m sure that happened before this point.