I am speaking towards Marionology, which has been making inroads within the RCC. It is the RCC's job to articulate what they mean by Marionology, not those who have chosen to reject it.
You didn't define what you mean by the term, or rather, what you think we mean by the term, though.
(Actually, I'd almost say that the IC doesn't apply to Jesus at all, because saying that a Divine Person is conceived free from original sin and fully graced is tautological -- there's no other kind of Divine Person -- but that's an aside.)
To move it back to make some statement about Mary as having already the means by which to bring God as Man into the world
Huh?
It implies that Mary did NOT have free will
Huh? If the IC implies that Mary did not have free will, then Eve's creation in the garden also implies she didn't have free will, either.
Mary had the free will to say no to God, and did not.
Thanks, we're in complete agreement. Why do you think we aren't?
It is the RCC's job to articulate what they mean by Marionology, not those who have chosen to reject it.
If you can't define what you're rejecting, how do you know what it is?
Gotta get back to work. It's not clear to me that you really know what Catholics believe, though.
No, my dear, absolutely the opposite is true. The Immaculate Conception of Mary means God created her from the moment of her Conception with that same condition which Eve enjoyed before the Fall. Thus, when Eve chooses evil she does so in supreme free will unencumbered by the Fall, and when Mary gives her Fiat (saying "Yes" to God) she does so in the self same supreme free will unencumbered by the effects of the Fall. Thus "two choices of womankind" are given within a like freedom, a free will, a being free from the effects of the Fall.
Now, how Our Lady came to receive this singular grace is a different subject, totally because of the Victory upon the Cross of Jesus Christ who was, and is, and is to come.