Astrologer says i'm infertile

waybread

Well-known member
Friesiangal, this isn't a thread about the history of fertility (global, continental, or national,) but it is very clear from European historical data that although women may have conceived fairly often, so many of their children died in infancy that the population remained basically stable (zero population growth) until the late 18th/early 19th centuries when it began to sky-rocket. Our grandparents' and great-grandparents generations were part of this upward trajectory, when most babies did mature and reproduce. Birth rates declined in our generation, with more economic prosperity, opportunities for women, and birth control pills.

This is consistent with what we read in some of the early astrologers. Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos (150 CE), for example, said that one of the first things an astrologer should do with an infant's chart is a length-of-life calculation, because there was no point in doing a chart reading for a child who "would not be reared."

In terms of actual fertility (# of babies born/woman) there were often dampening factors prior to ca. 1780 such as malnutrition, poor hygiene, incurable disease, childbirth death, warfare, and low life expectancy that began to be mitigated with improvements in food production, public hygiene, transportation to colonies as a "safety valve," higher incomes from industrial wages, and so on.

Lecture mode off.

I've tried to turn the standard fertility signatures on their heads, because if we could look at the charts of the hundreds of millions of actual mothers, their fertility signatures may look rotten yet they managed to bear and raise children, notwithstanding. Demographically the number of humans on the planet today cannot be explained by the successful childbearing of only those women with "green light" astrological traditional fertility signatures.

Plus today we have all kinds of fertility treatments that were unimaginable in the past.

I can't say what star2858's astrologer was analysing, but a couple of things pop out. One is that if she and her husband were trying to conceive for a mere 3 months (followed by a miscarriage?) this is entirely within the realm of medical normalcy.

I don't know what the medical advice is now, but when I was disappointed at not having a second child more quickly than I did in the early 1980s (they're 5 years apart,) the advice was, don't worry about it unless two years have elapsed without a successful conception. Much later in life, I learned that I have a "tipped uterus" so it was somewhat remarkable that I was able to conceive without intervention at all. Not to mention my moon and 5th house planets in barren signs, Saturn traditionally ruling my 5th house and opposed by Mars, Lilith in the 6th square Uranus (modern ruler of my 5th) and whatnot.

I can't say that astrology definitely does not show any fertility problems, but I just think that the amplitude of natal fertility indicators is probably a lot broader than astrologers traditionally allowed. Sometimes Uranus involved with the 5th for example, doesn't necessarily indicate miscarriage but an unexpected child; or that the woman might actually want more personal freedom and independence than children would allow.

I don't say the above to contradict what you posted, merely to present some lateral thinking about the fertility question in astrology. You're the medical astrology expert on this forum, not me, and I have a lot of respect for your expertise.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
star, I would also add that millions of Hindus swear by the sidereal zodiac (vs. our western tropical zodiac) which pushes both your and your husband's moons into water signs. (In sidereal astrology, each of our western tropical planets would move backwards about 27 degrees.)

Further, the ruler of your (tropical) 5th house (sun) is disposited by Mercury and Venus in mutual reception. Venus is generally beneficial Your husband's 5th house ruler Mars trines his moon, and he's got Venus in the 5th. I don't think it's all bleak.

You might also look at your progressed chart, favourable transits, and the lunar fertility diagrams available at Astrodienst.

Here is one version of your sidereal chart.
 

Attachments

  • star's sidereal chart.gif
    star's sidereal chart.gif
    66 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:

Frisiangal

Well-known member
Hi Waybread,
Your post #21 seemed to contradict your previous statement that
'I think in Days of Yore it must have been harder for women to conceive than it is today'.

But perhaps it's just the way I read it......lecture or otherwise. :smile:

You're the medical astrology expert on this forum, not me, .......

You've made that comment before, to which I replied that I am no expert. I just like to study charts for their health value.

I have never studied aspects of fertility in charts beyond the usual significators one would associate with it and hope to find. Apparently there are special significators noticeable, yet it's never been an area that has captured my interest as has other factors of medical astrology. :smile:

I do believe that that there are factors other than purely medical that can have a bearing on pregnancy issues. Star2858 has mentioned those in an earlier post. She is now reading this thread through another perspective than when she first placed her query. I think that's positive of nature and hope her child wish will be fulfilled.....for all the right reasons.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Hi there,

I've been a follower and contributor to this board for a few years now and now i have a question about myself. I went to see an astrologer which a friend recommended. My reason for the visit was because my husband and I are trying for a baby. We have had no known medical issues investigated (I am the female and I had some tests a few years ago that on an unrelated issue but came out fine). I am 28 and he is 34.

The astrologer said that he saw great difficulty ahead, which has worried me a lot as it's hard to tell what is wrong at this early stage.

I have attached our charts but my main concern is related to the fact that i also believe we have infertile pointing charts. I have mars in virgo in the 5th house by leo. There is a square between the 5th ruler, the sun and saturn, in the 8th. Also, moon in aries. My husband's chart also has a huge fire presence through aries and the moon in leo. I am also concerned about the combust venus/mars through conjunction with the sun, present in both charts. I do not see the classic fertile signs anywhere in the right places in ours, such as pisces or cancer.

Is anyone able to have a quick look at all? My chart is 'kkkk' and his is 'shhh' - sorry for the acronyms!

Moon and Jupiter are both in Aries (rather barren), your 5th House in Virgo (barren) and the ruler of your 5th in Libra (fruitful). His Moon is in Leo (barren), his Jupiter in Libra (fruitful), his 5th House and the ruler of the 5th both in Aries (barren).

So this looks more like a 'few children' case than a 'no children at all' case.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Friesiangal, this isn't a thread about the history of fertility (global, continental, or national,) but it is very clear from European historical data that although women may have conceived fairly often, so many of their children died in infancy that the population remained basically stable (zero population growth) until the late 18th/early 19th centuries when it began to sky-rocket. Our grandparents' and great-grandparents generations were part of this upward trajectory, when most babies did mature and reproduce. Birth rates declined in our generation, with more economic prosperity, opportunities for women, and birth control pills.

This is consistent with what we read in some of the early astrologers. Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos (150 CE), for example, said that one of the first things an astrologer should do with an infant's chart is a length-of-life calculation, because there was no point in doing a chart reading for a child who "would not be reared."

In terms of actual fertility (# of babies born/woman) there were often dampening factors prior to ca. 1780 such as malnutrition, poor hygiene, incurable disease, childbirth death, warfare, and low life expectancy that began to be mitigated with improvements in food production, public hygiene, transportation to colonies as a "safety valve," higher incomes from industrial wages, and so on.

Lecture mode off.

I've tried to turn the standard fertility signatures on their heads, because if we could look at the charts of the hundreds of millions of actual mothers, their fertility signatures may look rotten yet they managed to bear and raise children, notwithstanding. Demographically the number of humans on the planet today cannot be explained by the successful childbearing of only those women with "green light" astrological traditional fertility signatures.

Plus today we have all kinds of fertility treatments that were unimaginable in the past.

I can't say what star2858's astrologer was analysing, but a couple of things pop out. One is that if she and her husband were trying to conceive for a mere 3 months (followed by a miscarriage?) this is entirely within the realm of medical normalcy.

I don't know what the medical advice is now, but when I was disappointed at not having a second child more quickly than I did in the early 1980s (they're 5 years apart,) the advice was, don't worry about it unless two years have elapsed without a successful conception. Much later in life, I learned that I have a "tipped uterus" so it was somewhat remarkable that I was able to conceive without intervention at all. Not to mention my moon and 5th house planets in barren signs, Saturn traditionally ruling my 5th house and opposed by Mars, Lilith in the 6th square Uranus (modern ruler of my 5th) and whatnot.

I can't say that astrology definitely does not show any fertility problems, but I just think that the amplitude of natal fertility indicators is probably a lot broader than astrologers traditionally allowed. Sometimes Uranus involved with the 5th for example, doesn't necessarily indicate miscarriage but an unexpected child; or that the woman might actually want more personal freedom and independence than children would allow.

I don't say the above to contradict what you posted, merely to present some lateral thinking about the fertility question in astrology. You're the medical astrology expert on this forum, not me, and I have a lot of respect for your expertise.
Some good points there. As you say, there are a lot of different factors playing into conception (some may be even beyond our personal control).

In part, astrology can say something about our general physical constitution but mostly it tells us about our general attitude regarding certain life topics and towards what direction we flow our life energy. So whatever the chart tells us, it's not going to be the final word as is what the doctors tell us.
 
Top