# Immaculate Conception

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immaculate-conception/313232>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [July 20, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immaculate-conception/313232 "2005-07-20T02:13:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rat144](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6bbea6/32.png) [@rat144](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat144)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immaculate-conception/313232/1 "2005-07-20T02:13:41Z")

</div>

Contrary to the implication in (1) of the answer about [Jesus H. Christ](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_033.html), the Immaculate Conecption does not refer to Haploid’s birth.

Of course, I won’t hold it against Cecil, since he has apparently [figured it out](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990730a.html) since.

Heh, I feel special now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immaculate-conception/313232/2 "2005-07-20T02:19:07Z")

</div>

I don’t think that referring to the _circumstances_ around Yeshua’s birth as “immaculate” is a clear indication of a fuckup. They arguably were.