posted May 01, 2012 05:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
I'm NOT going to argue either but in my experience, 5th house rules BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN, born from your BLOOD and 11th house rules the ADOPTED or STEP children, children who don't have your BLOOD. 11th house includes the children of your PARTNER. 5th house CANNOT be the house of all type of children, because it must exist a difference in your MOTHERHOOD. 5th house shows also if a person is sterile or not. If that person cannot have children on her own, 11th house is the next house checked. 5th house OPPOSITE. 11th house is a top house, a house of PUBLIC. 5th house is a buttom house, a PERSONAL house. So: 5th house: children from your own blood. 11th house: children of STRANGERS. OF OTHERS.

---

Maybe I'm not being clear, but I wasn't saying that you were wrong.

I was just curious as to what the associations are and why those houses were chosen, as it hadn't occurred to me. I'm not arguing. I just honestly wanted to know and asked respectfully.

I guess to me, blood doesn't personally matter when it comes to kids, and I wouldn't treat adopted children differently than biological ones. I'm in the US, and from the families with adopted kids that I've encountered, they don't treat them any differently. I would never have guessed that some were even adopted if I hadn't been told, as they just were so natural together.

I can see the point about 11th house being the house of strangers, but I just hadn't made the connection in my mind that adopted kids are strangers. In the US, a lot of children are adopted as babies. I've even heard of families choosing an adoptive family (in the case of what are called "open" adoptions) before even giving birth. I don't know if it works that way for closed adoptions too or not. So, since I'm used to adoptive children being in the family since they were babies, I didn't make the connection to 'strangers' because they'd grown up with the family in a lot of cases.

posted May 01, 2012 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Maybe I'm not being clear, but I wasn't saying that you were wrong.

I was just curious as to what the associations are and why those houses were chosen, as it hadn't occurred to me. I'm not arguing. I just honestly wanted to know and asked respectfully.

I guess to me, blood doesn't personally matter when it comes to kids, and I wouldn't treat adopted children differently than biological ones. I'm in the US, and from the families with adopted kids that I've encountered, they don't treat them any differently. I would never have guessed that some were even adopted if I hadn't been told, as they just were so natural together.

I can see the point about 11th house being the house of strangers, but I just hadn't made the connection in my mind that adopted kids are strangers. In the US, a lot of children are adopted as babies. I've even heard of families choosing an adoptive family (in the case of what are called "open" adoptions) before even giving birth. I don't know if it works that way for closed adoptions too or not. So, since I'm used to adoptive children being in the family since they were babies, I didn't make the connection to 'strangers' because they'd grown up with the family in a lot of cases.

Again, I'm not arguing. Just explaining why it hadn't occurred to me. And, again, I can see your point.

---

posted May 01, 2012 05:38 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
Moon in Libra in 5th house shows 1 baby maximum 2. Libra is a semifertile sign and moist. But the ruler is in 10th house. In my experience, people who have their 5th house ruler in the houses on top (10th, 11th, 12th) rather adopt than having their own. I have the ruler of my 5th house in 5th. I may sound selfish but I never wanted to adopt but to have biological children.

---

posted May 01, 2012 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
I know that Saturn in the 5th is notoriously barren .

---

posted May 01, 2012 05:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Rosalind, it is not selfish to want biological children.

It is selfish to expect all other women to have biological children whether they are inclined to or not and to carry their unplanned pregnancies to term just because that is what YOU would have done. That is selfish.

---

posted May 01, 2012 05:49 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
You know wrong.

---

posted May 01, 2012 05:50 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
Again. You are wrong. No one has this type of expectations.

---

posted May 01, 2012 06:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Rosalind, it is not selfish to want biological children.

It is selfish to expect all other women to have biological children whether they are inclined to or not and to carry their unplanned pregnancies to term just because that is what YOU would have done. That is selfish.

---

I agree.

Having a child is such a hugely personal decision.

I don't feel that people should be forced to have children/put them up for adoption just because someone else can't have kids. It's not their fault that the other person is infertile, and they are not responsible for people who cannot have children. They don't owe an infertile person a child. It is extremely unfair to expect someone else to have a baby for you just because you can't have one of your own, regardless of that person's (i.e., the one with the baby to place) feelings. It's entitlement-minded and highly demanding, not to mention completely inconsiderate of that person's autonomy, legal rights, financial situation, health situation, emotional state, mental state, and is completely disrespectful in every way to their human experience.

There are many, many children out there awaiting adoption as it is already; I very highly doubt that there will ever be a worldwide shortage. There are many reasons why children end up for adoption, and many ways that couples can adopt. So, even if someone women choose not to give birth, there are plenty of other kids out there, and probably always will be plenty.

On top of that, putting a child up for adoption is no guarantee that someone will choose to adopt that child. Plenty of kids are just sitting there in foster care. And wanting to adopt does NOT guarantee that you will legally be allowed to do it. US adoption laws are, from what I understand, extremely strict. The whole process is expensive. And, too, a biological parent does have some time to change his/her mind, so you can spend all of that money and they can renege, up to a certain point. Sometimes, adoptions don't work out, like in the case where the mother sent the adopted son back to Russia because his behavior was so horrible and he was disruptive to the family: she literally put him on a plane and sent him back, it was that bad.

Here's the article:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/anger-mom-adopted-boy-back-russia/story?id=10331728&p age=2#.T6BjOdny26U

Adoption, abortion, parenting, and not parenting are complicated issues, and there are no easy answers.

People should be allowed to choose which is right for them and their lives.

posted May 02, 2012 01:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

I've read this from multiple astrologers, so I won't take it personally, I'll just assume that you are saying that about a dozen other astrologers are wrong.

---

Multiple astrologers should not take astrology so lightly. If they say Saturn in 5th means ONLY childlessness they should quit. Saturn should NEVER be underestimated. See, thats why I hate basic astrology and the so called astrologers who think that everything in astrology is the same for everyone. It is NOT. Thats why the natal chart must be very well analysed. Because people with this position CAN have children but LATER. Not NEVER.

posted May 02, 2012 09:18 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
Multiple astrologers should not take astrology so lightly. If they say Saturn in 5th means ONLY childlessness they should quit. Saturn should NEVER be underestimated. See, thats why I hate basic astrology and the so called astrologers who think that everything in astrology is the same for everyone. It is NOT. Thats why the natal chart must be very well analysed. Because people with this position CAN have children but LATER. Not NEVER.

---

posted May 02, 2012 09:21 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
Leo is a barren sign not the most fruitful.

---

posted May 02, 2012 09:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
I know that Saturn in the 5th is notoriously barren .

---

Nah....my hubby has that and we have the OPPOSITE problem!

posted May 02, 2012 09:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
I have one Leo moon friend who was born infertile and the other one is gay:-O. Weird!!

---

For what it's worth: I know another infertile Leo moon.

posted May 02, 2012 09:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:

Leo is a barren sign not the most fruitful.

---

HUH?

My mother was a Leo and had six children, my Leo friend has six, my Leo husband has five with me, my Leo cousin has 3 but is trying for 7.

posted May 02, 2012 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
HUH?

My mother was a Leo and had six children, my Leo friend has six, my Leo husband has five with me, my Leo cousin has 3 but is trying for 7.

I don't get it. Does this just apply to the moon sign?

---

posted May 02, 2012 10:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:

I would say as long as they have the emotional and financial resources to do this, single-parent adoption is fine. Mainly, my concerns would be that they are prepared, can secure safe and reliable child care (since they don't have someone else at home who could provide child care), and that they have a supportive extended family. If the child has emotional, behavioral, physical, mental, or psychological problems, of course the family should be equipped to deal with that and be able to access resources. And, of course, that the parent is sound and stable and a good person, all of that jazz.

Basically, a long-winded way of saying that I'm not against single-parent adoption, and that I'd apply the same standards to a two-parent adoption. I'd just worry about a single parent a little more since it would be harder, but I would not rule out a single parent as a potential adopter, male or female. I'm also fine with same-sex couples adopting and feel that they should have the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

At the end of the day, a stable, financially secure, loving, home with authoritative parents (not draconian, not permissive, but the right balance between rules/structure and fun times) is what I personally feel is best, though as a childfree person my opinion is that of an 'outsider'. Parents should be nurturing, caring, emotionally and mentally sound, and have good character. If those conditions are met, it doesn't matter, in my opinion, if those parents are two men, two women, one man, one woman, or a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if they're biologically related or not, or if they're actual parents, aunts and uncles, cousins, or family friends. What matters, to me, is that the home is the right one.

---

posted May 02, 2012 10:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Even if you don't have a male partner, you can still have male role models. If you have a dad, brother, or good male friends, those are places to start. And, too, once the child goes to school, maybe teachers and coaches too. So, you're not 'depriving': you'll just have to get a bit creative.

---

posted May 02, 2012 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amowls**:
Brad Pitt has 5th house in Aries, a barren sign. He also has an empty 5th house and the ruler is in Cap, another so called barren sign. He has multiple adopted AND biological children and he has always stated he wanted a large family.

There are theories and then there's real life. I don't think anyone should ever talk about astrology in absolutes.

---

posted May 02, 2012 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosalind:
He might have 5th house in Aries but you forget something. He started having kids LATE in life( Capricorn!). He didnt have any kids while young or with Jen Aniston.
Astrology isnt about absolute truths but EXACT truths. We should not forget the composite 5th house he has with Angelina.

---

Clearly. But, regardless of what your intent was, you've been saying that people with a barren sign on the cusp of the 5th on top of an empty 5th house, won't have children at all. Ever. It's pretty easy to back track, isn't it?

Queen Elizbeth II has an empty 5th house in Gemini, Mercury in Aries. 2 barren signs, had her first child when she was 22, not exactly late in life. Her second kid came 2 years later, when she was 24.