MattSavinarAstrology

Robin · Newbie

Birth date or Conception date?

Date: Oct 23, 2010

birth date is for the natal chart.

don't know about the conception date BUT placements in or aspecting the 12th house is often considered to be associated with the womb experience.

you could also do conception date in addition to the regular natal chart and see what comes up. what was the energetic environment like when you were conceived.

Reactionary_Aquarian · Member

In the tradtional astrology of Europe and Rome and Ancient Greece and all the way back to the first civilisation of ancient Sumer, a person's astrological chart is based on the moment of birth, NOT conception.

There are at least two (or more) logical reasons for this ancient custom:

1.   Empirically, the exact moment - the exact time and place - of birth, can be known. But the exact moment of conception is almost always speculative.

2.   In virtually 100 percent of civilised cultures (including "Non-Western" ones), the identity of a Human Person has always been defined by BIRTH rather than by conception.

3. As I am a Catholic (and an astrologer too, yes I am a Catholic astrologer!), personally I believe that every Human life begins at conception, although as an astrologer I believe that every person's astrological chart begins at birth.   But on that note, now I want to pose a question for Robin:

Robin, IF you believe that Human Life begins at conception, then do you also, logically, believe that to abort an unborn child is killing a Human Being?

I will not and I cannot "judge" you for your answer.   But I would like to hear your answer, because in my experience, many people who claim to defend "Human Life" in one breath, are split-minded about it because many of them do NOT believe that every Human embryo/fetus has 100 percent Human Rights.

Therefore, Robin, as you seem to regard Human Nature as beginning at conception, may I deduce, logically, that you are against abortions of the unborn, equally as much as (I presume) you are against murder of any Humans?

This provocative question is from (me) a double-Aquarian with both sun and moon conjunct Saturn, and so I am very strict about Human Rights. wink

cobaltblue · Newbie

Robin, there's a very tongue-in-cheek book by Michael Lutin called Childhood Signs where he actually delves into irreverent conception signs. (Mine is "The Motel Room." Capricorn's is "The Sperm That Makes It.") And I think there's another strain of astrology--draconic I think--that also factors some of that pre-birth element into the mix.

That being said, I do sort of think it's an area for more humorous exploration than anything else. Lutin's approach is just right I think. He's quite handy at creating evocative and contemporary imagery to describe various astrological phenomena. Check out his Saturn Signs for more of where that came from. Perhaps his book would spark some interesting notions for you?

Robin · Newbie

Reactionary_Aquarian

Thank you for your answer and extensive insight.

I'm a Humanist. I believe life begins at conception, but is often terminated by others from that moment onward. In three years of air combat in Viet Nam, for example, I terminated many hundreds of life forms, and since women were often found in troop concentrations, prenatal lives were probably among the terminated. Since I believe this span of life is all we have, and termination is assured, the astrological interest I have is to discover whether traditional Astrology has what would be a logical connection with the moment of conception, or is strictly charted by the highly convenient delineation of date of birth. Given that gestation is well established, would it not be much more precise to be a day or two off, one way or another using conception, than to be a whole nine months off using ones date of birth? That is why I keep tripping over that date of my conception in so many ways, even though I am the quintessential Gemini, born nine months after conception!

Thanks, again, for your thoughts and insight.

_________________________________

It's the second mouse that gets the cheese.

-- Edited by Robin on Saturday 23rd of October 2010 08:42:46 PM

-- Edited by Robin on Sunday 24th of October 2010 07:28:03 AM

-- Edited by Robin on Sunday 24th of October 2010 07:29:29 AM

Reactionary_Aquarian · Member

Robin wrote:

Reactionary_Aquarian

Thank you for your answer and extensive insight.
I'm a Humanist. I believe life begins at conception, but is often terminated by others from that moment onward. In three years of air combat in Viet Nam, for example, I terminated many hundreds of life forms..

Robin, I thank you for your reply.

And in reply, I ask you please to tell me:

1. In the war in Viet Nam, which nation's military were you in?   America or Australia?

2.   Exactly which branch of the armed forces of either of those nations were you in, when you were in "air combat" in Viet Nam? Navy, or Air Force?    You would not be a United States Marine, because if you were, you would have identified yourself as one as per US Marine tradition. And the US Marines had no air forces, because the US Marines are part of the US Navy; there are no air combatants in the US Marines, only in the Navy and the Air Force.   Same goes for the Australian armed forces.

3.   Exactly which unit did you belong to in the US (or Australian) Air Force or Navy, when you were in combat in Viet Nam?

4.   Yes I'm calling your bluff! I do not believe that you were ever in combat in Viet Nam.   And one of the clues is your use of the term "life forms".   NO combat veterans of Viet Nam talk that way! Real combat veterans of Viet Nam talk (whenever they talk about their experiences, which is rarely) about killing "women and children", or about killing "people". Or, some of the f---ed up ones among them (a minority) might call the enemy "Charlie" or "Gooks". But NOT "life forms".   To talk about killing "terminating life forms", is a sign of someone who has never killed a Human Being. And it's a sure sign that you were never in the **** in VietNam nor anywhere else.

-- Edited by Reactionary_Aquarian on Friday 29th of October 2010 11:57:24 AM

-- Edited by Reactionary_Aquarian on Friday 29th of October 2010 11:58:43 AM

-- Edited by Reactionary_Aquarian on Friday 29th of October 2010 12:00:19 PM

-- Edited by Reactionary_Aquarian on Friday 29th of October 2010 12:04:12 PM

Reactionary_Aquarian · Member

PS, Robin, I see you say you were born in 1934. So I don't rule out the possibility that you might have spent some time in VietNam as a nurse. (And that is a remote speculation.) But I do not believe that you were ever in combat. Because men who have been in combat (and in the Viet Nam war, NO WOMEN were in combat), do NOT refer to their victims as "life forms". Gooks, yes. But "life forms", no.

Robin · Newbie

Reactionary_Aquarian,

thanks for the interested reply. I've found Arthur C. Clark's reference to life as "life forms" to be most fitting for a myself as a Humanist. I was raised in an Atheistic home, with a military (air combat) father and an MD (Surgeon) mother, and only in recent years did I drop the Atheist appellation for Humanist when I realized being an Atheist meant saying there was something in which I didn't believe. After 8.5 years in the Strategic Air Command flying B-47E's and B-52's, with the 509th Bomb Wing out of Pease AFB, New Hampshire, I volunteered to get my year in Viet Nam out of the way. Near the end of my first year flying F-105's in Nam, the rules changed, and ONLY non-volunteer-directed-duty assignments would count toward the one year in-country requirement. I stayed over and did a second year in 105's, returned to the States to command an F4D Phantom squadron that had never been to Nam, and back I went for my third year. President Johnson cut the bombing over the North half way through my second year, so almost all of my third year was concentrated in the south. Pulp fiction and grade "C" movies voice some of the terms of which you speak, however, I've found there are those who did, that never speak of combat, and those who didn't, who never shut-up about it. My father, a combat pilot in both WWI and WWII, retired with over forty years under the flags of four countries, and perhaps I've heard him mention less than fifty words regarding his exploits. He taught me to fly when I was 15, out of the same airfield he taught Army Air Corp pilots air combat tactics in 1939-40, Montgomery Field, San Diego. I still pass my Commercial Class 1 Physical every six months, though most of my flying is to get myself and friends from point "A" to point "B." Life has been a great ride, and I hope I still have some more gas in the tank. My name ("Robin Armour") is usually the first to come up on Google, and I'm listed number three at http://www.b-47.com/flightlog.html, with 3,500+ hours in the B-47E.

Robin · Newbie

Reactionary_Aquarian

" And the US Marines had no air forces, because the US Marines are part of the US Navy; there are no air combatants in the US Marines, , , ,"

I forgot to mention, the absolutely toughest air combat pilots in the world are those of the Marine Corp, and they fly, I believe, mostly in support of the ground units. What little I know about them is that they must first have come from command in a ground combat unit before they are considered for an aviation post. This way, they know the needs and special situations faced by their brothers on the ground. While they fly Navy equipment, their aircraft are identified with MARINE stenciled on the sides, and to my knowledge, they have their own Marine ground crews. Coming from the ranks of those on the ground, the Marine pilots seem to have a sixth sense and situational awareness that I've observed scores of times, especially over the delta region in Nam.

Courage.

Robin 'n Hummer

Reactionary_Aquarian · Member

Robin wrote:

Reactionary_Aquarian

" And the US Marines had no air forces, because the US Marines are part of the US Navy; there are no air combatants in the US Marines, , , ,"

I forgot to mention, the absolutely toughest air combat pilots in the world are those of the Marine Corp, and they fly, I believe, mostly in support of the ground units. What little I know about them is that they must first have come from command in a ground combat unit before they are considered for an aviation post. This way, they know the needs and special situations faced by their brothers on the ground. While they fly Navy equipment, their aircraft are identified with MARINE stenciled on the sides, and to my knowledge, they have their own Marine ground crews. Coming from the ranks of those on the ground, the Marine pilots seem to have a sixth sense and situational awareness that I've observed scores of times, especially over the delta region in Nam.

Courage.

Robin 'n Hummer

Okay, this convinces me that you are real, and that you have always spoken truthfully on this forum.

And I thank you for your evident understanding of why I am suspicious of anonymous internet commenters who claim to have experienced combat. Their name is Legion, and their pretensions taint the names of all real Soldiers and Sailors and Marines.

But now I believe your stories. And I thank you for answering me, in the way that only a real warrior would do, neither defensively nor offensively, just truthfully.

-- Edited by Reactionary_Aquarian on Friday 12th of November 2010 07:23:33 AM