Revelation, Original Sin, & The Immaculate Conception

I came across an argument against the immaculate conception of Mary. Though, it may not have been exactly that. More precisely, it was argued that the belief in the immaculate conception was inconsistent with the belief that Mary is the woman described in Revelation. In short, the woman described in Revelation has birthing pains. Birthing pain is a consequence of original sin. Mary had no original sin. Hence, either the woman described in Revelation is not Mary, or Mary had original sin. 

So is there is problem? No. One error lies in the understanding of Original Sin, and I just finished a series on that, so I feel equipped to comment. Nowhere in the Catholic understanding of Original Sin is it believed that birth pain is a consequence. It is true that as a result of the sin of Mary, women have birth pain, but that's not Original Sin. Original Sin is the sin of Adam, not Mary, which incurred in the human race, both male and female, the loss of Original Grace and a wounded nature, entailing death. The consequences then are those which affect humans generally, and no specific sex. Hence, pointing to a sex specific trait will fail to be identified with Original Sin.

Consider too that Jesus had no original sin, yet he died. Jesus had no original sin, yet he wore clothes. This is explained in Romans 5:15, when it says that the gift is not like the trespass. So the absence of Original Sin does not entail that one can be naked or one cannot die. Rather, it is abundant in grace. So, briefly it looks like this:

1. If one has original sin, one dies
2. Jesus has no original sin
3. Therefore, Jesus does not die

This is invalid because it denies the antecedent. That's why the gift is not like the trespass. Consider this too:

1. If one has original sin, one dies
2. Jesus dies
3. Therefore, Jesus has original sin

That is invalid as it affirms the consequent. Again, the gift is not like the trespass. So when we consider that death is a consequence of Original Sin, we see the bible being very logically accurate in determining what the proper causes and effects are. Consider the similar argument:

1. If a woman has original sin, she has birth pain
2. Mary had birth pain
3. Therefore, Mary has original sin

This is also invalid for the exact same reason as the previous syllogism, it affirms the consequent. So, not only does the argument have a defective understanding of Original Sin, it's not even valid to begin with.

Is Mary the woman described in Revelation? Probably, but I'm not certain. What is certain though is that this is a bad argument against it.