blue eyed snake

the conception of a baby

Recommended Posts

I wonder,

 

for many years now there are children whose conception is in vitro instead of in vivo.

 

more technology is arriving, crispr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR) and today I read that some Japanese ( I think) researchers have been able to create eggcels out of cells taken from the tail of a mouse. Technique needs to be refined of course, but you get the idea.

 

pretty soon humans will be able to create humans in ways that were not to be thought of only half a century ago. 

 

Now much debate about the ethical side of these developments is of course to be expected, but that's not what i aim for here. I think i will hide posts about the ethical side. 

 

I wonder what it means on the spiritual level,

for me, the making of a baby is a joining of bodies, energies and preferably spirits. but one way or another, a being not yet physical enters the action and starts to make a connection with father and mother. At that moment the twosome becomes a threesome, some people are aware of this.

 

then the new being sort of attaches itself to the energetic body of the mother to be, and i think that at the moment that the fetus is physically 'sound' this new body stats to enmesh itself with the small physical body. I think that these processes probably are not linear but sort of 'vague' a slow dipping into first the energetical body of the mother and later into the physical. Sort of slowly lowering vibrations, or something....

 

these are my thoughts on the conceptions of a baby.

 

Further, I know  that IVF children are more prone to developmental problems then the old fashioned produced baby.

 

But I wonder, what the hell happens to the new spirit when those first stages are in vitro? When it misses the threesome, the slowly dipping in the energy of the mum in those first days???

 

anybody ideas?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, this is very bad qigong.

 

And the developmental problems you mention in the offsprings - the results.

 

Corporations are not actually trying to improve nature.

 

They are trying to subdue and dominate it.

 

Thus this way of generating new broken citizens from human beings, disguised and sold as "progress".

 

But from eye of heaven & earth & humanity, this is no "improvement" at all.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no longer sure what I think.

 

Used to be that I'd rage against humans altering wild/biological processes for our own interest or gain. Surely there are hidden dangers, like there have been with so many technologies in the past. But who's to say we can't improve upon some things?

 

I have an instinctive dislike for the idea of IVF, it seems so impersonal and, as you say, the twosome are not making a threesome -- the twosome are oddly separate, which seems wrong. I don't know about 'spirit', but certainly it seems preferable that the process is completed "as nature intended".

 

But then again, I have no problem with GMO foods, or various other 'unnatural' technology. Logically, if we can steer 'natural' processes, make them safer or more efficient without adverse side effects, doesn't it make more sense to do that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"But who's to say we can't improve upon some things?"

-----

What have we improved upon of nature thus far?

-VonKrankenhaus

Fruits and veggies for one thing.   In some cases its amazingly dramatic.  We've been at it for 1,000's of years.  Not always better, but most of the time.. I think so.   Course that may not be what nature thinks. 

 

In vitro fertilization.. don't know.  Haven't seen information that kids are the worse for wear because of it.  I hope not.  Does spiritual sex lead to spiritual kids??   Don't know, but genetics and nurture might mean as much as a sutra during conception. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, this is very bad qigong.

 

And the developmental problems you mention in the offsprings - the results.

 

Corporations are not actually trying to improve nature.

 

They are trying to subdue and dominate it.

 

Thus this way of generating new broken citizens from human beings, disguised and sold as "progress".

 

But from eye of heaven & earth & humanity, this is no "improvement" at all.

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Yes, I think it's no improvement too, ( but that's the ethics I did not want to be the core of this topic  :D )

 

regarding the developmental problems, i remember having read research which concluded something like: the risk for getting a developmental disorder is higher for an IVF-child then for a naturally conceived child. meaning something like, there is a certain percentage of children that has developmental disorders, this percentage is higher for children that are conceived by IVF. So, meaning that not all IVF children have developmental disorders.

 

But I remember it well, and I've always wondered why you never hear about this higher risk.

 

Furthermore i do not believe that these sort of interventions are thought out to hurt the human race, probably these researchers are really thinking there doing humankind a service, but that's  beside the question i ask here.

 

How do you think/feel that the enmeshing/incarnating of a new being going into the flesh is happening and following: what effect these kinds of interventions will have on that spirit?

 

would like to hear your ideas on that topic

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no longer sure what I think.

 

grin, that seems to be the first step to wisdom  :P , emptying your cup of pre-existing ideas to make space for new ones

 

 

Used to be that I'd rage against humans altering wild/biological processes for our own interest or gain. Surely there are hidden dangers, like there have been with so many technologies in the past. But who's to say we can't improve upon some things?

 

 

 

yes..and no

 

for a long time humans have tried to make fruit/veggies and livestock of a quality better suited to their taste, meaning easier to harvest, more yield/ better crops, sweeter fruits, softer meats, veggies that are softer to chew and less bitter.

 

me thinks these processes are not bad as such but only up to a point.

 

we've made veggies with less bitter, well, bitter is needed very much for the body to function well. If we would eat more bitter then there would be less gallstones and we would have better indigestion. Humans need bitterness in their diet ( even when they do not care for the taste  :D )

 

we've made fruits more sweet, the human body does not do too well on too much sugars

 

I'm from Holland, our cows produce amazing amounts of milk, but the quality of that milk is low. There's been research to compare our ' normal cow-milk'  with the milk of cows that produce (far) less but have a more natural life, eat mainly grass and hay (no soy or maize) content is measurably better. Also these cows with a very high milk-yield suffer from many ailments, so are in fact unhealthy/sick cows.

 

so, regarding food, to me it seems that were already past the point that the improvements really are improvements. The food we eat nowadays has a far lower content of needed nutrients ( and energetic liveliness) then is healthy for our bodies.

 

Accidentally, the yield of milk in dutch cows is partly created by the selection of bulls. A very small group of bulls creates all calves via artificial insemination.... so I sort of return to the topic here  ;) 

 

 

I have an instinctive dislike for the idea of IVF, it seems so impersonal and, as you say, the twosome are not making a threesome -- the twosome are oddly separate, which seems wrong. I don't know about 'spirit', but certainly it seems preferable that the process is completed "as nature intended".

 

 

 

Yep, and besides that, I've a hunch that the low quality of typically western food is part of the cause of the high infertilty-rate. Those cows i wrote about, more or less standard get selenium added to their diet because they need that to become pregnant, and by now it's clear that a lot of humans have too low selenium-content in their bodies. Another thing that I've never heard anyone mentioning regarding human infertility, but every farmer knows it....

 

don't know much about spirit either, the way I've put it is just the way it feels to me. And being a woman i much prefer the natural way  :D

 

 

But then again, I have no problem with GMO foods, or various other 'unnatural' technology. Logically, if we can steer 'natural' processes, make them safer or more efficient without adverse side effects, doesn't it make more sense to do that?

 

 

 

Earlier I was sort of like that, but it has changed, the bad side effects are always popping up later. And about this cutting and pasting genes, the researchers themselves are honest in so far that they say they do not know what other effects the cutting of a certain part of the DNA will have. i deem that dangerous business.

 

seems to be about balance really, but imho we have over-tipped the scales and are now dangling

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fruits and veggies for one thing.   In some cases its amazingly dramatic.  We've been at it for 1,000's of years.  Not always better, but most of the time.. I think so.   Course that may not be what nature thinks. 

 

In vitro fertilization.. don't know.  Haven't seen information that kids are the worse for wear because of it.  I hope not.  Does spiritual sex lead to spiritual kids??   Don't know, but genetics and nurture might mean as much as a sutra during conception. 

 

a sutra during conception... never tried it.....always been to busy with other things during sex...

 

but when you start form the idea that some energetic being is involved and slowly enmeshes itself with the physical realm, what happens during conception should have influence on the human to be.

and it's not only the conception in a petri-disc, they also freeze the embryo's

 

pretty cold start

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"But who's to say we can't improve upon some things?"

-----

 

What have we improved upon of nature thus far?

 

I was quite careful not to say that we have improved upon anything. I was only posing the question.

 

For one,

"Nature" is simply what is. What is, is. Some would say nature can be neither improved nor worsened.

 

For two,

From the human perspective, some would say humans have made numerous improvements through science, and through altering wild processes. Selective breeding, medicine, engineering, genetic engineering, etc.

For example: http://nationalpeanutboard.org/news/these-10000-year-old-peanuts-are-taking-scientists-back-to-future.htm

"..early inhabitants of South America brought A. ipaensis into the area where A. duranensis was naturally growing, and the two species cross-pollinated to create peanuts."

The peanut is my favourite crop, and would not exist without human meddling. And in the last few years, peanuts have been made more water- and energy-efficient and produce a greater yield. Some would say this is an 'improvement'.

 

For three,

From the human perspective, some would say that regardless of any perceived 'improvements', any changes we've made have either been null (made no lasting positive impact) or have impaired the overall condition of the world, or will at some point in the future.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humankind's behavior is either more or less profane or profound, dependent upon whether the act(s) were done selfishly or selflessly.    

 

personal intent is more or less determinate on where one lands

 

sex  = more or less profane

making love = more or less balanced one person giving to pleasure the another     

sharing love = more or less profound                        

 

Ethical or spiritual I don't know if they can be separated?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a sutra during conception... never tried it.....always been to busy with other things during sex...

I generally invoke some deity at some point,

sometime in the beginning, middle or end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally invoke some deity at some point,

sometime in the beginning, middle or end. 

 

Like... Oh My God! I'm cumming!

 

The most religious people are the ones who have sex  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In vitro is the last hope of having child for some.

The child born of such interventions is an innocent survivor.

Love of the newborn is no less.

The enmeshing of life with newly formed embryo is no less if happening in vitro.

The creation of life does persist and is equally amazing in vitro or invivo.

Enmeshing of new life with embryo is equally unknowable with in vitro as it is with invivo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dao is utterly neutral

 

petry dish

or womb

 

life spark is life response and life is life until its death

dao cares not at all

dao nourishes all

 

sun and rain saturate both the murderer and the healer without distinction

 

it's my mind that gets all tied up in emotional judgement and shoulds and should nots

 

I'm too small to say if a child from a dish is as lovable as one from the dish of the mother

for really, the petry dish, how is it not from the mother (dao)?

 

matters of mind distinction

 

I'm far more potent when I release such things

and I seem to enjoy this potency

 

so let things manifest in whatever manner they do

and my response is my responsibility

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for reviving this topic,

 

I wasn't looking for judgments, nor of parents to be or of their offspring.

 

Just intrigued by what it means for the newborn, energetically, spiritually to have this other way into being embodied

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's useless to write about Dao while ignoring it and perverting it into what one desires.

 

Dao means Way.

 

Industry has other agendas, ideas, and goals, and are pursuing their own "way".

 

These new "ways" are not "sustainable".

 

They are temporary and relative, for a limited purpose..

 

And so are not "Dao" that we write about here.

 

 

 

 

 

- VonKrankenhaus

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2016 at 10:59 AM, dust said:
From the human perspective, some would say humans have made numerous improvements through science, and through altering wild processes. Selective breeding, medicine, engineering, genetic engineering, etc.

For example: http://nationalpeanutboard.org/news/these-10000-year-old-peanuts-are-taking-scientists-back-to-future.htm

"..early inhabitants of South America brought A. ipaensis into the area where A. duranensis was naturally growing, and the two species cross-pollinated to create peanuts."

The peanut is my favourite crop, and would not exist without human meddling. And in the last few years, peanuts have been made more water- and energy-efficient and produce a greater yield. Some would say this is an 'improvement'.

Quote

 

DAB58E77-D26A-4C5B-86D0621DB933EEDF.jpg?

Arachis ipaensis (left) and Arachis duranensis (right). These two species of wild peanut crossed 10,000 years ago in Bolivian valleys to create the modern variety.

The modern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) is the result of the hybridization of two older types of Andean peanut. It has 20 pairs of chromosomes—the total from both old species, which have 10 chromosomes each. Scientists always thought—a suspicion now confirmed—that the "parents" of this peanut were the variants Arachis duranensis, very common in the Andean foothills between northwestern Argentina and southeastern Bolivia, and Arachis ipaensis, a species that had been reported but unconfirmed in a Bolivian town several hundred kilometers north, but thought to be extinct, until now.

1.  The modern peanut is a hybrid of these 2 wild peanuts, which are still both found in Bolivia today.  So, they may have hybridized naturally on their own, anyways?

2.  What even (qualitatively or quantitatively) makes the modern peanut "better" than these wild ones?  Have you even tried either of these wild peanuts?  Is there even much of a difference between all 3 - in taste, or otherwise?

3.  Mostly WEIRD "improvements" of edible plants have usually consisted of:

a.  Making them bigger (quantity over quality)

b.  Making them sweeter (more fructose, sucrose, etc) and less bitter (less healthy)

c.  Making them white (through breeding and bleaching) and less nutritious

d.  Making them seedless (defeating the whole evolutionary purpose of fruits and preventing consumers from regrowing their own)

e.  Making them resistant to pesticides (LMFAO @ literal mad scientists)

f.  Replacing biodiversity with patented monocultures

7843.png

Corn.png

Whereas wild varieties tend to be far more resilient, smaller, denser, more brightly-pigmented, full of seeds, more flavorful (but not just sweeter), etc.  They are typically lower in calories and sugar, but higher in many other phytonutrients and minerals.  So, it would be hard to get fat or cavities from eating them.  Note that there is no obesity in Nature.  None.

Ulp7lp5.jpg

UGdd23z.jpg

Edited by gendao
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a gardener let me say Heirloom tomatoes are a pain in the neck.  When they grow right, they're wonderful, but most of the time, most of the fruit, goes wrong.  Bursts, breaks, drops, diseased, doesn't flower etc.,   Most of the time you only get a few good tomatoes per plant, versus dozen or more from a hybrid.  

 

I'll still plant one every season or two, hoping random factors align and I get a bunch of tomatoes that look like the picture but unless I receive a special blessing from the tomato fairy, it never does.  My cherry tomatoes, sweet 1000's and hybrid yellow's have never let me down. 

 

So viva la hybrid.  My latest plant should have genes from a blue whale grafted in.  I should be able to open up a window on the second floor and scoop out some red gooey tomatowale whalamato goodness by July. 

 

 

 

addon> how the heck did we get here from 'The Conception of a baby?'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 - WHALAMATO (Red Family)  (from http://archive.thegia.com/features/lomguide/lomproduce.html)
A whale-shaped tomato with a stem that looks like a water spout.
Increases: Mgc, HP, Chm
Decreases: Def, Agr

  10-tn.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder,

 

for many years now there are children whose conception is in vitro instead of in vivo.

 

more technology is arriving, crispr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR) and today I read that some Japanese ( I think) researchers have been able to create eggcels out of cells taken from the tail of a mouse. Technique needs to be refined of course, but you get the idea.

 

pretty soon humans will be able to create humans in ways that were not to be thought of only half a century ago. 

 

Now much debate about the ethical side of these developments is of course to be expected, but that's not what i aim for here. I think i will hide posts about the ethical side. 

 

I wonder what it means on the spiritual level,

for me, the making of a baby is a joining of bodies, energies and preferably spirits. but one way or another, a being not yet physical enters the action and starts to make a connection with father and mother. At that moment the twosome becomes a threesome, some people are aware of this.

 

then the new being sort of attaches itself to the energetic body of the mother to be, and i think that at the moment that the fetus is physically 'sound' this new body stats to enmesh itself with the small physical body. I think that these processes probably are not linear but sort of 'vague' a slow dipping into first the energetical body of the mother and later into the physical. Sort of slowly lowering vibrations, or something....

 

these are my thoughts on the conceptions of a baby.

 

Further, I know  that IVF children are more prone to developmental problems then the old fashioned produced baby.

 

But I wonder, what the hell happens to the new spirit when those first stages are in vitro? When it misses the threesome, the slowly dipping in the energy of the mum in those first days???

 

anybody ideas?

 

What a great question. I haven't read any other posts yet, but I would first like to share  what I received from a shaman regarding conception energetics, and the conclusions this transmission have led me toward.

 

What was shared with me, was that during conception we have a unique spiritual invitation created, whereby some spirit out there has been waiting to reincarnate - waiting for very specific circumstances related to the timing within the celestial mechanism as well as the appropriate patterns created by the parents, both in regards to DNA and energetics.

 

For example, if some spirit has existing karma related to learning lessons about loyalty and truthfulness, with a dab of mischievous proclivity, this spirit is going to need a certain type of environment that will cater toward the natural rediscovery of these lessons. This spirit doesn't choose when and where to reincarnate, but needs to be called down by the right circumstances. The more specific the karma, the more specific the conditions necessary to meet. This is why I believe those like the Dalai Lama are able to choose the parameters of their reincarnation: Because their karma has already been dissolved, perhaps this lack of conditions allows their spirit to find a home in a wider range of invitations.

 

In vitro, we are still meeting conditions, such as DNA and the celestial mechanism. The celestial mechanism is the complex momentum of planets and energies which will have a very large impact on the person's natural proclivities and the timing of lessons they will come to face, though these factors still leave room for the specifics to shape in many ways. Some of these factors will now be influenced by the DNA, and yet there is still another layer that factors into shaping these specifics and helping to precisely match the spirit to the right parents - the spiritual energy of the parents, especially during the act of conception.

 

When two people come together to intentionally create a new life, they are saying we are inviting a new life to join our family and our spiritual dynamic. When two people come together through spiritually destined encounters, and a baby is not necessarily invited, but the spiritual invitation is treated as something very sacred, this is another shaping to the invitation. When conception happens when at least one of the parents knows they would rather not have a baby right now, there is another type of dynamic, even should they change their mind after discovering the conception had occurred.

 

There are probably other more finely tuned dynamics related to the precise energetics of each participant and the field created during the act of conception. Let us also not leave out that during gestation the fetus will be influenced by any energies projected into its home, and this is probably a very large way the father is able to help with nurturing the growing child to be.

 

All of these factors will help to determine how much struggle or resonance the new being has as it develops as a fetus, and also as a child, as children are mightily influenced by the parental environment. When there is a greater resonance with a parent, one is able to grow up in greater harmony with that parent, helping them to develop energetically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually the way they need to face their karmic lessons.

 

Many of us are quite familiar with what a lack of familial resonance looks and feels like. We can trace these dissonances back to there not being an intention to be together in the first place, in many cases. But of course I'd imagine there are factors beyond this as well.

 

Now with in vitro conception, we have a somewhat sterile energetic environment with what I'd imagine is a weak energetic field. The conditions of the invitation are fewer, and so there are more spirits with the right qualifications - or rather there are less chances for the conception to fail due to being blocked by the energetic field.

 

This again is largely my intuition speaking, so here's an excerpt about IVF success rates:

 

Many patients think that an excellent IVF success rate is 80% or above, and that anything below 50% is poor. Well, did you know that even a young and fertile couple has just a 15-20% chance to conceive naturally in any one month? Women with top chances of IVF success have per-cycle success rates of 40% or higher, while the majority of women have per-cycle success rates of 20-35%. Having this perspective may help you think about trying more than one cycle, and feel less discouraged if the first one doesn’t work.

 

This seems to support the theory of a higher success rate in vitro, if not for the reasons I mentioned.

 

So if it is easier to conceive in vitro because there are fewer hoops to jump through, I would logically conclude that the chances of parental resonance are lower. I do not know how much influence the energetic field created in vivo conception has on the energetic development, but it seems quite possible that it would help to nurture the fetuses early stages of development. So in vitro then we have an increased likelihood of parental dissonance and we are lacking an energetic field from conception that could assist in development - both of these factors seem like they would contribute to potential developmental issues.

 

This is just my intuitive and logical perspective on it all, without any ideas of what is right or wrong. Please be aware that I may be close to the mark here, but I also may be way off on any number of these conclusions. Right now I find a good resonance with how complete these ideas feel, but over time I'm sure I'll find ways to refine the perspective too, and anything could change. Hope this helps!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a gardener let me say Heirloom tomatoes are a pain in the neck.  When they grow right, they're wonderful, but most of the time, most of the fruit, goes wrong.  Bursts, breaks, drops, diseased, doesn't flower etc.,   Most of the time you only get a few good tomatoes per plant, versus dozen or more from a hybrid.  

 

I'll still plant one every season or two, hoping random factors align and I get a bunch of tomatoes that look like the picture but unless I receive a special blessing from the tomato fairy, it never does.  My cherry tomatoes, sweet 1000's and hybrid yellow's have never let me down. 

 

So viva la hybrid.  My latest plant should have genes from a blue whale grafted in.  I should be able to open up a window on the second floor and scoop out some red gooey tomatowale whalamato goodness by July. 

 

 

 

addon> how the heck did we get here from 'The Conception of a baby?'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 - WHALAMATO (Red Family)  (from http://archive.thegia.com/features/lomguide/lomproduce.html)

A whale-shaped tomato with a stem that looks like a water spout.

Increases: Mgc, HP, Chm

Decreases: Def, Agr

  10-tn.jpg

 

 

Maybe you'd better try another variety of 'old' tomatoes. For many years I had a veggie and fruit garden. I found that some old varieties just didn't work in that plot ( where they were great on my earlier garden, I changed from err, I think you may call it peatland, to sandy soil). Every variety has it's own place in the whole schem of things.

I did use one modern variety of green beans though, they were mightily tasty, easy to grow both early and late n the season. But I used two other varieties also and they were always a succes

 

and this comes in nicely with the post from Daeluin, who seems to say that whether a baby will enmesh nicely with its parents may have to do with the way he/she went into the flesh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a great question. I haven't read any other posts yet, but I would first like to share  what I received from a shaman regarding conception energetics, and the conclusions this transmission have led me toward.

 

What was shared with me, was that during conception we have a unique spiritual invitation created, whereby some spirit out there has been waiting to reincarnate - waiting for very specific circumstances related to the timing within the celestial mechanism as well as the appropriate patterns created by the parents, both in regards to DNA and energetics.

 

For example, if some spirit has existing karma related to learning lessons about loyalty and truthfulness, with a dab of mischievous proclivity, this spirit is going to need a certain type of environment that will cater toward the natural rediscovery of these lessons. This spirit doesn't choose when and where to reincarnate, but needs to be called down by the right circumstances. The more specific the karma, the more specific the conditions necessary to meet. This is why I believe those like the Dalai Lama are able to choose the parameters of their reincarnation: Because their karma has already been dissolved, perhaps this lack of conditions allows their spirit to find a home in a wider range of invitations.

 

this is more or less how I feel about conception , yes

 

In vitro, we are still meeting conditions, such as DNA and the celestial mechanism. The celestial mechanism is the complex momentum of planets and energies which will have a very large impact on the person's natural proclivities and the timing of lessons they will come to face, though these factors still leave room for the specifics to shape in many ways. Some of these factors will now be influenced by the DNA, and yet there is still another layer that factors into shaping these specifics and helping to precisely match the spirit to the right parents - the spiritual energy of the parents, especially during the act of conception.

 

yes, it is that what my question is about, what is different when the spiritual/energetical enmeshing of the threesome is missing

 

When two people come together to intentionally create a new life, they are saying we are inviting a new life to join our family and our spiritual dynamic. When two people come together through spiritually destined encounters, and a baby is not necessarily invited, but the spiritual invitation is treated as something very sacred, this is another shaping to the invitation. When conception happens when at least one of the parents knows they would rather not have a baby right now, there is another type of dynamic, even should they change their mind after discovering the conception had occurred.

 

err, maybe intentionally is a bit too strong, being open to the possibility seems enough to me

 

There are probably other more finely tuned dynamics related to the precise energetics of each participant and the field created during the act of conception. Let us also not leave out that during gestation the fetus will be influenced by any energies projected into its home, and this is probably a very large way the father is able to help with nurturing the growing child to be.

 

All of these factors will help to determine how much struggle or resonance the new being has as it develops as a fetus, and also as a child, as children are mightily influenced by the parental environment. When there is a greater resonance with a parent, one is able to grow up in greater harmony with that parent, helping them to develop energetically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually the way they need to face their karmic lessons.

 

yes, but lets keep in mind that having developmental problems can in itself be a karmic lesson. I mean, it should not be looked at ias if the health of the being is causally related to the way of conception

 

Many of us are quite familiar with what a lack of familial resonance looks and feels like. We can trace these dissonances back to there not being an intention to be together in the first place, in many cases. But of course I'd imagine there are factors beyond this as well.

 

there are many more reasons for familial resonance, for example being of the ' wrong sekse' being someone else then your parents ( or one of them) hoped for. Or simply being not overly smart where your parents are, or the other way round. Or think of the parents who earlier lost a child. They can wish mightily for a new baby but when the baby is there they can be unable to open up for the child, for fear of being hurt again, etcetra ad infinitum. Maybe familial disresonance can be/ is a karmic lesson in itself.

 

Now with in vitro conception, we have a somewhat sterile energetic environment with what I'd imagine is a weak energetic field. The conditions of the invitation are fewer, and so there are more spirits with the right qualifications - or rather there are less chances for the conception to fail due to being blocked by the energetic field.

 

that's an interesting remark, but how goes the ' new' spirit. Will it attach to the lump of cells in the petridisc? or will it hoover around and in the energetic body of the mum to be? or both?

 

This again is largely my intuition speaking, so here's an excerpt about IVF success rates:

 

Many patients think that an excellent IVF success rate is 80% or above, and that anything below 50% is poor. Well, did you know that even a young and fertile couple has just a 15-20% chance to conceive naturally in any one month? Women with top chances of IVF success have per-cycle success rates of 40% or higher, while the majority of women have per-cycle success rates of 20-35%. Having this perspective may help you think about trying more than one cycle, and feel less discouraged if the first one doesn’t work.

 

This seems to support the theory of a higher success rate in vitro, if not for the reasons I mentioned.

 

thanks for this, this is about conception. But how about the succesrate of bringeing the baby to birth? I seem to remeber that the rate of  miscarriage is higher for in vitro started  pregnancies?

 

So if it is easier to conceive in vitro because there are fewer hoops to jump through, I would logically conclude that the chances of parental resonance are lower. I do not know how much influence the energetic field created in vivo conception has on the energetic development, but it seems quite possible that it would help to nurture the fetuses early stages of development. So in vitro then we have an increased likelihood of parental dissonance and we are lacking an energetic field from conception that could assist in development - both of these factors seem like they would contribute to potential developmental issues.

 

i suppose that's thereason that I wonder about the percentage of miscarriage. But i would be careful with the interpretation of parental disonance. That in itself can be a reason to ' choose' those parents. It's something on the energetic/spiritual possibilities that i feel there might be damage done

 

 

This is just my intuitive and logical perspective on it all, without any ideas of what is right or wrong. Please be aware that I may be close to the mark here, but I also may be way off on any number of these conclusions. Right now I find a good resonance with how complete these ideas feel, but over time I'm sure I'll find ways to refine the perspective too, and anything could change. Hope this helps!

 

thanks!

gives new ideas, even though it's always a struggle for me too plough through your long posts full of words and sentences that I, as a non native speaker, have some trouble to grasp  :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

variety of seeds, for a variety of conditions...

 

I recall reading an enlightnening article about South American farmers who have developed and maintain hundreds of varying types of seeds of one particular fruit or veggie... all manner of seeds so that no matter what conditions arise that growing season, they will not starve.

 

if they had an early wet spring, there were seeds that flourished in these conditions...

 

if there was a short, late dry season, they also had variieties to grow in these conditions as well...

and all manner of variety in between.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the initial stages of a spirit (baby being) taking on a physical body - the being is as involved as possible. It does not matter that it is natural or with help. It is immediately involved with the mother and all energies in which it can expand.

 

Contrary to any lowly opinions on the gift of becoming a human - it is an extraordinary gift - the enthusiasm for having a body is not waning.

 

In so far as looking at higher incidents of problems for those born to IVF - look at the circumstances surrounding the process. A couple begins to want children but find that they cannot naturally - or at least that it is just not happening. After extensive testing and searching they look to other means - this is all not emotionally fun and exciting - it is gloomy, self debilitating, humiliating and strikes to the core of things like "I'm broken".

 

The cost of often several attempts to become pregnant in this way is not cheap - and considering the couples tend not all to be older and rich - this adds to a great deal of additional strain around the conception. Imagine you have finally decided to go for it and the first $10,000 does nothing. You think the woman is not getting desperate- and worried that she may be pushing her husband too hard to help amass another $10,000 try?

 

Meanwhile the baby being is pretty well in place at this time - at least a current pool is established if the event is to take place.

As you can imagine - once the IVF takes place the family is holding their breath in hope - not just hoping for a baby but hoping and fearing that the cost of another try is not around the corner - these are $10,000 lottery tickets - and sometimes you get triplets and more.

 

Boom - it happens - rest assured the being is immediately involved - as involved as it can be. The extent to which it is involved is somewhat in relation to how strong the agreements are with one or both of the parents. For a very considerable time the being can be displaced for another being. This is basically up to the parents. Along these lines most of the world has no information.

 

The woman's body progresses into childbirth along with the beings involvement - this is a combined experience - the woman's partner is involved but the shared body experience of the baby being and mother is relatively a personal experience. The baby being is within the field of the mothers bodies - the partner is also coming and going within these fields but not sharing a number of energetic channels viscerally.

 

In the natural conception there is generally no great worry energy surrounding conception - and when it happens nothing is done for several weeks or so because it is not yet known - the baby being is very brightly in the women's womb and vibrantly establishing the relationship - the women is for now unconcerned and the intimacy builds quietly. When it becomes known it is a joyful acknowledgement and normal care and concern is given.

 

In vitro conception is a fully planned and to some a very costly affair - from the outset it is concern and nail biting - it is the last hope for a "home grown baby" vs an adoption or no children. As the pregnancy takes place the being is just as brightly working its way within the woman's body but it is generally within less calm bodies and far more sharp energies. These things can take a toll.

 

Another thing to look at is that in general IVF takes place in an older overall group age of women - so as with all older groups of women giving birth - they have a higher incident of children with behavioral problems as well as physical problems.

 

Similarly - the reason we have a higher infant mortality in the USA than many other countries that are quit poor by comparison has nothing to do with the failure of our medical system - it is because in many countries women in general give birth far younger than we do and younger women simply have less complications - and their children have less physical and behavioral problems.

Edited by Spotless
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slight tangent.

I strongly dislike the immediate prodding, poking, weighing and multiple shots that new born babies get here in modern US hospitals.  Disgraceful really, much of it for the benefit of the immediate doctors.  

 

Much better if they kept the lights down, kept the baby in a warm less stimulated environment instead of treating it like an unwelcome alien.   Maybe one or two things were necessary but most of it could wait, and let peaceful bonding between mother and child happen immediately. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites