Tuesday, September 07, 2010



On a recent gathering on a sailboat there were six people, no wind, relatively cold weather and only two of us on board had children of his/her own. Given the poor sailing conditions, there was plenty of time to converse. A gynecologist among us asked me whether there were indications in one's horoscope permitting to know about having children or not. Despite her professional expertise (and being pretty), she had not been able to have children, hence her question.

With no children myself, and having studied some astrological textbooks and what they say in this respect, here's the gist of our "sailor's conversation":

House 5 (the house of procreation or creativity) in a person's map is indicative of the likelihood of having or not having children in one's life. It is evidently more certain if there are - or not - any planets in the maps of both persons forming a couple. If there is a personal planet (except Mercury) in the map of one of them, this may indicate children. But they will only be of "little importance" to one of the parents, if he/she has no planet in his/her House 5. (The children concerned will probably not like that parent as much as the other).

In my natal map there is one planet in 5: as it happens, it's Mercury. I never wished to have children myself (the prospect of being a father was too much of a "bourgeois thing" for me). I quite seriously investigated, astrologically as well, this personal option of mine. Born in 1943 in the Swiss Alps, I have lived as a child the invasion by "too many tourists" of our then beautiful and quasi-virgin surroundings. It started in 1948 with the winter Olympics in St. Moritz, then came Club Med in the 60's and all the "Nouveau Riches" and their imitators who fatally would be following. At such an early age I had no idea of great agglomerations, the suburbs of big cities and other even worse, overcrowded places in this world. To me as a youngster, a place that quadrupled in population during the tourist season was an abomination. To wait for over an hour to go up a ski-lift was hardship, so spoiled we were then.

To tell it straight and right at the beginning here: in my opinion, maybe very egoistically, the world at large would be better off if there were fewer people. Economic "imperatives" however appear to say the contrary. For obvious, commercial reasons. Accepted norm says that there should be "economic growth, and better steadily, so even the lazy can prosper". And with them the automobile - and so many other polluting industries, even the defense-industries. Following the principle that the more the world gets crowded, the more augment the risks of conflict. And consequently the need to "defend" one's possessions or territory.

From the preceding it's evident that our modern politico-public-government-capitalistic-(or-not) -social-system wants us to continue to grow in numbers. All over the place. Even some today still important churches contribute to that by categorically opposing contraception etc. And then people complain about pollution. If not about that produced in their own country, unfailingly of the pollution created by their neighbors.

Respecting the recommended principle of keeping a balanced view, one must, given the world's situation today, laud a recent initiative by the Indian Government. The situation in India being close to getting out of hand (even more today as everybody there also wants a car or at least a motorbike), the Indian authorities recently announced that they "will pay recently married couples not to have kids". Half the population in India is under age 25. China did the same some 30 years ago, starting under Mao. Only they did not offer to pay. There it was by threatening with punishment, even jail. Costs less and is probably more efficient. But India is still influenced by the more polite British...

This being a bit of a complex subject, it's probably useful to look at it the way one cuts a chicken, piece by piece, the legs first.

In the centuries past, when Europe and other places were at times suffering from a lack of population growth (famines, pest, wars) and their way of life, mostly agricultural, demanded permanent replenishment of young human beings (farm-arms), our ancestors did what was required. Women were quasi-constantly pregnant. Question of survival. This appears to still be the "ideal" pursued by a certain church with it's headquarters in Rome. The same type of pundits who pretended that the earth is flat until that idea became unsustainable.

In modern times, medical and other progress helping, including of course the pill, God (or what one may differently call "Higher Events in Human Evolution"), brought about, and for the first time, the possibility of choice in this question of procreation. For entire nations and for each person individually. This time, and that's new, the environment starts being taken into account. Maybe or foremost, the main reason being that humans have become an ever more polluting species. It's not just CO2 or our mountains of garbage. But many other factors: to e.g. produce 1 ton of steel, over 7 tons of water are wasted. Etc. etc.

For atheists and people not particularly religious, the demands of a healthy environment appear to be enough reason to start thinking about what's healthy for our environment in terms of populating the planet. So they mostly agree that some limitation to population growth is desirable. To the more religiously inclined, one may suggest that if God (or their particular God) has recently permitted that some scientists invent the pill and other methods to limit undesirable procreation (the pill for the day after, or 5 days after), they'd better listen as well. If not for themselves, at least by not opposing those who do wish to contribute to limit the excessive growth of the world's population.

In a way, humanity is being faced on various fronts with the same basic question: how to take better care of our planet. It's about resources, population growth and the well-being of those already in existence. The capitalistic "economic-growth-is-needed-concept" no doubt requires some profound revision.

To end these considerations on an astrological note: If there are planets in House 5 of a person or in the respective houses 5 for both partners in a couple, it's likely that children will be born. There is however no planetary indication as to the number of children they should have. So reason (and not hazard) can limit that.

Also, if it turns out to be difficult for somebody to have children, maybe before running to consult the expensive "X-famous-gynecologist-wonder-child-producer" and have some implanted-semi-artificial child, it might be intelligent first to consult a competent astrologer. If there are indications in the horoscope for children, then go and see the wonder doctor. If not and the desire to have a child is strong, consider to adopt. That can be doubly useful, for the adopted child and by not adding more people to what may already have reached the limit of desirable numbers of humans on this earth.


Shanthi said...

I think the ruler of the 5th house,its placement whether its a malefic and other maleific aspects to it, are also to be considered and not just the planets or absence of planets in the 5th house.In my experience, natural malefics like North Node,Mars either in 5th or aspecting/conjuncting 5th lord gives rise to delay in concieving a child.Mars generally causes miscarriages.

Gian Paul said...

Hi Shanhti, now we are getting scientific: you are most probably right. The ruler of the house, sign in which the fifth house cusp is, etc. play a role. And good/bad aspects, the nature of the planets. Interesting what you say about Mars and miscarriages.

As you say "generally", could you please amplify. Some readers may thereby be helped. Thanks.

Twilight said...

Gian Paul ~~~ I'm a non-maternal type who has never once in her life wished that she'd had a child.
I've often wished for a sibling, but never an offspring.

My fifth house (if rectified time of birth is more or less correct) has Mars and North node of Moon in Scorpio there, though Libra is on 4/5 house cusp. That could possibly connect in part to what Shanthi has written.

But there are other, more commonplace life-experience reasons for my feelings....which Mars and NN might also signify - who knows!?

My mother almost died when I was born and she could bear no more children: one reason perhaps for what could be a learned fear of childbirth? Although I wasn't consciously afraid of it - simply didn't feel the "want" of children.Perhaps this was moreso because a first marriage in my early 20s was disastrous.

Nothing later changed my mind, in fact what happened later underlined that it was wise to have remained, and to continue remaining childless - confirming my early intuitive feelings.

Astrology Unboxed said...

I think traditional astrology has a lot to offer as far as this topic is concerned.
Traditional astrologers divided the signs in fruitful, semi-fruitful and barren signs:
•fruitful (fertile) signs are: Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces
•semi-fruitful (semi-fertile) signs are: Libra, Taurus, Capricorn
•barren signs are: Aries, Gemini, Leo, Virgo, Sagittarius, Aquarius
Beside the division of the signs, the planets have their own division in fruitful, semi-fruitful and barren planets too, just as follows:
•fruitful (fertile) planets are: Moon, Venus, Jupiter, (Moon's) North Node, Neptune
•semi-fruitful (semi-fertile) planets are: Mercury (Uranus?)
•barren planets are: Sun, Mars, Saturn, Uranus (?), (Moon's) South Node
In fertility charts, fruitful planets in fruitful signs presage fertility and children. Barren planets in barren signs may denote infertility.
When looking at all the planetary positions in the signs in the woman's natal chart, one has a very general (and not infallible!) idea on the total (in)fertility of that woman.
When the Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, the sign on the Ascendant and the sign on the 5th house cusp are in barren signs, there definitely is a possibility of lesser fertility or even infertility. This can be offset when transiting Jupiter travels through the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th or 8th house and aspects the mentioned planets.
According to the Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology by Charles E.O. Carter, the Sun afflicted by Saturn often shows "sterility" in a female's natal chart. Miscarriages seem to result from a Sun-Uranus affliction as well as an affliction from Uranus to the 5th house (cusp).

Personally, I have Uranus in Leo very close to the cusp of the 5th house

Gian Paul said...

ASTROLOGY UNBOXED- Hi Fabienne, if your rich indications are right (I have no doubts about that, only they appear quite complex - and numerous to experiment with or to corroborate), one might think that for a woman to have children, she might be well advised to consult with you or to get involved in studing astrology before getting too close to "her man"...

Gian Paul said...

Twilight, you mention having been married, with no children. So was I, for 28 years and as my ex and I both liked to travel, having no children was not "uncomfortable".

This may sound like an egoistical way of thinking, but hasn't the modern world brought about just these possibilities? And maybe we are both pioneers in a way.

There is an otherwise nice guy not far from where I am here, a bit south of São Paulo. He has 19 children, and he is not a farmer. When I say "otherwise nice" it's that he visibly takes little care of his kids. No need to enter into details, but given that he is not poor, one can wonder...

Rossa said...

That is amazing GP. No planets in my 5th house, no children.

No planets in my mother's 5th house though it has her North Node and despite having 2 children and 3 pregnancies never wanted children.

Her sister (my Aunt) also no planets, always wanted children, never had them.

Their mother (my grandmother) no planets in 5th house, had 5 children and didn't want any of them apart from maybe the middle one the only one to go to University and sadly died 13 years ago of breast cancer.

It has been interesting to see the theme play out in our natal charts. Thank you for your insight. Always did wonder if there was some correlation.

Rossa said...

Forgot to say my grandfather also does not have any planets in 5th house and they still had 5 children.

My father has Uranus in his 5th house.


Gian Paul said...

Hi Rossa, very obliged for the results of your personal investigation. Overall, my findings appear confirmed. Should not forget that in a couple there are 2 and in the case of your grand-father, even if he had no planet in his house 5, possibly that was not the case for your grand-mother to whom he was married. And then there are the exceptions.

Even that ex of Brad Pitt (Aniston) saying that she does not need a man to have children. So no 5th house required neither. See what comes out of that...

Twilight said...

Gian Paul ~~~ Just a stray thought...One "fly in the ointment" is that so many people, especially of the older generations are not aware of an accurate time, or sometimes even time of day, when they were born.
This is partcularly so in the UK where times of birth are not routinely recorded, as they have been in the USA for quite some time.

Without a time of birth 5th house position can't be established.
I wonder if there's any other indication available that doesn't rely on time of birth?

How about Moon (mother) and Cancer (nurturing)positions and whether they have positive aspects from oher planets - or not. Or something in relation to Leo, as it is connected to 5th house ?

I learned (though it's a while ago so I might be wrong) that just about any interpretation needs to have an "echo" elsewhere in the chart- some astrologers even say there needs to be 3 indications of a prediction or definite interpretation.

Any thoughts?

Shanthi said...

In Vedic astrology,its Mars that rules the actual mensuration,even though it follows the 28-day cycle of the Moon.Mars is a fiery planet ruling blood and hence its placement in the 5th or close association with the 5th lord can cause miscarriage.And I used the word'generally'because one needs to check if there is a beneficial influence of Jupiter on Mars.Jupiter is a natural signifactor for children among other things.One can say the interplay of various factors have to be studied before coming to any conclusions.Thats what makes astrology so interesting and also tough to master !

Gian Paul said...

Hi Shanthi, I suspected that the Hindus may have another approach to this question of children being indicated or not in a birth map. Your explanation is very helpful, indeed.

That Jupiter is a "significator" or "amplifier" of procreation makes sense too, Zeus as his name was at the time of classical Greece, enjoyed mightily to surprise the ladies on earth, when they were young and pretty!

Gian Paul said...

The "Fly..." is much better than that: it's hopefully stimulating more research into this and other phenomena. As I would also say to SHANTHI, my observation about house 5 is only one, but not a minor set of probabilities.

There are certainly others and possibly more precise ones. The challenge to find them is there. It's a wide open field. Also the question of sexes, twins to be born or when. Imagine the "planned arrival of a child", at the astrologically desired "favorable moment"...

Candela said...

With Moon in the 5th, it's probably a small miracle I still don't have any children turning 34 in a couple of weeks. The Moon is in Capricorn, though, so that might just mean I've meant to gain certain maturity before having children.

Gian Paul said...

Hi Candela,
Moon in the fifth house in my sense, even if in Capricorn, indicates children. Even many. If Moon receives hard aspects however, it might be difficult. What you say about maturity and Capricorn sounds right, so "keep going". Best wishes GP