When does life actually start?

The question arises: Is birth time when the baby is completely out of the birth canal, when the cord is cut, meaning it now has independent existence, or when it takes its first breath? It doesn't matter too much for my brand of astrology but I know other practices need great accuracy for timing event predictions etc.

I posed these questions in another thread about my particular predicament (Chance discovery changed my birth time) where a few people have already expressed opinions but thought that more people may be interested in the general debate.

What are your thoughts?

To me it's when the person takes their first independent breath. I know people who had stillborn babies and besides the actual living existence in the womb, these babies didn't actually live on their own, although they were born. The umbilical cord has no significance to me in this case because if the baby is not breathing, with or without a cut cord does not make a difference. And the other way around.

There are important physiological changes happen in the newborn's body aren't there when the cord is cut, and, when they start taking their own breaths. Was it you Ronia who talked about your baby needed suction before it could breathe of its own accord?

So what time do doctors and nurses record?

Birth

My babies were recorded as 'born' the moment they emerged from my body. I didn't cut the cord for up to half an hour after birth, when the placenta was delivered in three out of four births. Birth is technically when the baby is out of the womb.

So until blood stopped flowing through the cord, the baby didn't have independent existence?

I think if you asked most astrologers the answer would be the moment when the child takes his/her first breath. I'm not sure whether they would have reflected on the cutting of the cord, but if they have, then I think they would still come down to that first breath.

I suppose one could argue that the key property is the moment when the child becomes a viable independent organism, which might lead to a debate about whether then child is viable if still attached through the cord. My feeling would be yes, though a failure to cut the cord (possibly because of the incapacity of the mother and the lack of medical attendants) might lead to real complications.

A perhaps more important question is Does it matter how we define birth?

The answer suggested at the outset is that it does matter for some approaches to Astrology - for example the use of Primary Directions is usually said to require an accurate time because an error of 1 degree in the Ascendant (on average 4 minutes of time) could through out predictions by a year. This has led Astrologers to seek to 'rectify' natal charts - 'rectify' of course means 'to put right' which strongly implies that there is a 'right time of birth'

Like zhan.thay, I have a doubtful birth time, and I've played with rectification, mostly because I like playing with software, rather than a real need to find my 'true' birth time. From what I can see there are a myriad of methods, and even a £300 program 'JigSaw' which seek to help you do this. Most of the more recent methods attempt to fit events in your life to a prediction method, such as PDs or Secondary Progressions, to come up with a 'best fit' - note not the 'correct' answer. Improving on the forecast accuracy for one event may well reduce the forecast accuracy for another and overall I tend not to bother with such an approach.

An interesting book, 'Moment of Astrology' by Geoffrey Cornelius questions the need and indeed basis for seeing an event being linked to one unique moment and indeed argues that valid charts, some of which were cast in error, can still be found which provide a useful but different insight into the person, or event being considered. He illustrates the natal side of this by looking at the intial birth time given for Princess Diana and then the later 'corrected' version and argues both charts were valid in telling us something about her.

So it might be interesting to cast a chart for Winterchild's children based on first breath and then the later cord separation and see not which was right but what additional information one gives compared to the other that can be verified from later life.

Incidently, I know from experience that a wrongly cast horary chart (usually because I forgot to allow for daylight saving) can still 'answer the question'.

The views of Seth

I have just had an article accepted for the December issue of ISARs astrological research journal which addresses the views of medium Jane Roberts and her channelled enity, Seth. Neither of them care for astrology, yet Jane's dozens of books chronicle her life events and sessions with Seth, giving dates and times. I've included many charts to show that astrology is relevant to her life.

Seth states that the birth time is not mostly relevant, that the soul enters the body by degrees over time, and that a birth chart --- in order to be useful --- needs to incorporate the death chart as well. A difficult thing for most of us to accomplish. Dave

My son needed suction because I had C-section, that's the norm. And there is difference between "birth" and "life start" because stillborn babies are also born, so their birth is a fact but their life start is not. Same with c-section babies. If they are out but don't start breathing, what? There is no life start. End of the story, to me at least. I already wrote that the nurse wrote down both times. I guess they just prepare themselves for the case when the baby may not start breathing, then they will write down the time of baby taken out as birth time. But in case the baby is healthy and starts breathing, they write down the time of the furst breath/cry. The difference, however was just a minute.