NATURAL BIRTH VS EARLY OR LATE CEASERIAN BIRTH

[dee...@gmail.com]

Sometimes children are not born naturally for one reason or another - either the mother's illness or the child's unnatural development or lack of development, so that the natural termination at birth is interrupted by medical means.

Does this change the child's birth date, or does one just go with the ceaserean date as one would go with a natural childbirth?

Or does one then use the 'due' date of the child had it been born naturally?

Thanks!

Dolores Finney

[Todd Carnes]

You're born when you're born, regardless of how you're born. Just use the date, time & place of first breath - natural birth, c-section, etc.

Todd

[A B]

What are you basing that on? Just your own experience with charts? I'm
interested to know, since I was an induced birth myself so if the "due date"
approach were the right one then what I've always assumed was my Ascendant
would be several hours off!
--
A. B.
><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[CFA]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:32:09 CST, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:

>"Todd Carnes" <toddc...@gmail.com> wrote on 28th June 2014:
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:53:44 AM UTC-8, Dolores Finney wrote:
>>> Sometimes children are not born naturally for one reason or another -
>>> either the mother's illness or the child's unnatural development or lack
>>> of development, so that the natural termination at birth is interrupted
>>> by medical means.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this change the child's birth date, or does one just go with the
>>> ceaserean date as one would go with a natural childbirth?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or does one then use the 'due' date of the child had it been born
>>> naturally?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dolores Finney
>>
>> You're born when you're born, regardless of how you're born. Just use the
>> date, time & place of first breath - natural birth, c-section, etc.
>>
>> Todd
>
>What are you basing that on? Just your own experience with charts? I'm
>interested to know, since I was an induced birth myself so if the "due date"
>approach were the right one then what I've always assumed was my Ascendant
>would be several hours off!

Basing it on? I would say it's based on observation of the first
breath. Induced birth might change the timing of a natural birth, but
we only need the data for that moment. How it happened has no impact
on actual symbol placement.

Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net

[Kjell Pettersson]

I can refer to no particular first source for this, but it is my distinct impression that astrologers in general would agree with what the others write; we are born when we are born, and when we are born is determined by the first breath. The archives of the group (accessible via Google Groups*) will certainly provide more posts on this.

The idea that the first breath signifies the beginning of life may be at least as old as Genesis, where God breathes life into Adam. There is a fully formed body, but until it has lifebreath, it is not a living moving being.

I would say that regardless of what powers may in ancient times have been accorded to the first breath, the idea does make sense to me. A breathing body is autonomous and not dependent upon the womb. This makes symbolical sense, connecting individual self and autonomy.

I also think the idea can be generalized into event charts, though, of course, we cannot choose breath as signifying beginning of life for an event chart. We'd need to choose an event that univocally shows us that something new has begun from the event, something that was not the case before the event.

The idea also makes sense in that no matter what theoretical considerations would have given, we base our charts upon what is physically real. A first breath is something observable in the physical universe, just like planets are. Orders of magnitude may differ, but ultimately they are "events" too.

Perhaps we can think of things like "the moment when this event, birth or other, should have happened, according to calculation and previous experience" compared to what actually transpired as showing how much actuality and theory differs; and this will differ from person to person.

That said, we should be aware how little we actually know about when we "should" be born. Intercourse is necessary for pregnancy (excepting assisted ones), but actual fertilization may occur quite some time after -- and we do not know enough to say when. It is even conceivable -- if you excuse the pun there -- that observing such an event could at times interfere with it.

/K

__________
* https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.astrology.moderated



On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:40:02 PM UTC+2, A B wrote:

[Jml...@hotmail.com]

I am very interested in this topic. When my Dr. Told me he wanted to induce labor even though I wasn't past the due date yet I was really bothered by it. I was induced and I have always felt my chart was off.