Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

How Many Children Would You Have...

243 replies

OtherS · 13/09/2025 17:38

If you had no worries about space, money, negative impact on career, social life etc? A lot of people seem to suggest that the collapsing birth rate is down to financial worries etc, but I'm wondering whether it's at least as much to do with women not actually wanting huge numbers of children. We used to have 6, 7 or more very regularly of course, but we didn't have much choice back then. Now we have contraception and less societal / marital pressure to have kids, is the reason for low birth rates more to do with woman's choice than concern about the impact of a large family?

AIBU - It's all about money; if I could afford to have 14 kids, keep my job, figure and lifestyle, I'd be all in
YANBU - Even with all the wealth - and nannies - in the world, 1 or 2 would definitely be more than enough for me, thanks.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
user1476613140 · 21/09/2025 18:15

pokewoman · 21/09/2025 15:51

I have four children and I find that is the perfect number for me, so I wouldn't have any more

Same.

pokewoman · 21/09/2025 15:51

I have four children and I find that is the perfect number for me, so I wouldn't have any more

BananaPeels · 21/09/2025 13:18

I got a bit and a girl and they were perfect so no need to go again!

MyPinkTraybake · 21/09/2025 12:56

Zero unless I'd had them in my early 20s then I'd say two, three possibly.

BauhausOfEliott · 21/09/2025 12:53

I have no kids. If money were no object I would still have no kids.

Letsgetthiswrongagain · 21/09/2025 12:51

mylefthand · 15/09/2025 17:44

I have 5 (mostly adults now) already but I definitely would have had more if circumstances had allowed.
I think maybe that is because I had 5 boys, I would really have loved a girl.

I’m the same but have 5 girls. I would liked to have one more.

GetOffMyLan · 21/09/2025 12:45

ZERO

coxesorangepippin · 21/09/2025 02:19

4

Catladyof7 · 21/09/2025 00:56

None. Never had any, never wanted any and think no different now .

Daftypants · 16/09/2025 18:50

I have 3 , I’d maybe have had 4 if I’d had any help eg a cleaner and maybe grandparents helping a little bit

Moreteaandchocolate · 15/09/2025 19:42

I planned for 2 but had 3 (second was twins!) I love having 3 and I’m very grateful for my “extra” child (!), but I couldn’t juggle any more than 3! Even with all the money in the world, most of all they need my time and attention, and there’s only so much of that to go round!

wertgyhjk · 15/09/2025 19:18

Still zero.

Murfmeister · 15/09/2025 19:18

TheOtherAgentJohnson · 13/09/2025 17:41

Zero. You couldn’t pay me.

Yup, me too.

VeryViolet · 15/09/2025 19:16

We hoped to have 3. Plan was to have the 1st when I was 30, the second when I was 32 and the 3rd at 34. Had 2, followed by a delay in getting pregnant, then 2 miscarriages. We then decided that the gap between no.s 2 and 3 would be too big, so we ought to have 4 children, 2 sets of 2. Had a further 2 miscarriages and gave up.

But actually, the 2 we had were perfect for us. If the final pregnancy hadn't miscarried, DH wouldn't have been able to retire when he did, as we'd still have had a child to see through Sixth Form and university.

Purpleelephant345 · 15/09/2025 19:09

Four I think, if I didn’t have to go through pregnancy!

RebeccaRedhat · 15/09/2025 18:14

I have 3 as it is, but would have loved 1 more. I (too quickly) decided to get my tubes tied after no 3 at 35, but wish I hadn't. Im 45 now so too old but yeah I would have loved 1 more.

mylefthand · 15/09/2025 17:44

I have 5 (mostly adults now) already but I definitely would have had more if circumstances had allowed.
I think maybe that is because I had 5 boys, I would really have loved a girl.

Hopingtobeaparent · 15/09/2025 17:29

I’m hoping to adopt in the next few years. I’d love 2, but will probably just do 1. I’ll have to see, also, I may be too old to want another. I’m one of 4. Quality over quantity.

Original poster
OtherS · 15/09/2025 16:06

NotABiscuitInSight · 15/09/2025 15:10

The trouble is that women no longer need men for anything other than sperm so we can be choosy.

Which means a great many men aren't even tolerated by women, hence incel culture and the Angry Small Man culture is on the rise.

Many women would now rather be poor single mums (or childless!) than accept low quality men that could have gotten away with all sorts in the past simply because they had a salary.

They need to shut down childcare and welfare aimed at supporting children and their carers (most of which are women) if they want women at home.

Show quote history

If they just shut down childcare, it's possible that more women simply wouldn't have children. If they want women back at home I think they also need to convince more women have babies, whilst making it hard for mothers to go it alone, or continue working. I definitely do feel that the fearmongering about population decline has more to do with wanting women back under men's control than genuine concern, else we'd hear more talk of making life easier for single / working mothers and keeping older people healthier longer so we need fewer carers. The only solution I seem to hear for falling birth rates is reversing women's rights, and keeping us barefoot and pregnant. Which is apparently in our best interests, as we'd be so much happier if we reject feminism and defer to men.

OP posts:
NotABiscuitInSight · 15/09/2025 15:10

OtherS · 15/09/2025 14:04

@NotABiscuitInSight

Oh, I agree. I think we should be working to carefully manage population decline, not continue with a pyramid scheme whereby we need to keep expanding populations to look after the increasing numbers of pensioners. I think globally there are far too many people for the planet's resources, and that's far more of an issue in 'developed' nations who are consuming vastly more than their fair share.

I was just set to musing by the conversations on the right that seem to want to return women to an oppressed underclass whose only purpose is breeding, and of course attending to their husband's every need. So I wondered whether female subjugation is actually necessary in order to convince us to have enough babies to maintain the population. And according to this entirely unscientific poll, it is not. Which is good news!

The trouble is that women no longer need men for anything other than sperm so we can be choosy.

Which means a great many men aren't even tolerated by women, hence incel culture and the Angry Small Man culture is on the rise.

Many women would now rather be poor single mums (or childless!) than accept low quality men that could have gotten away with all sorts in the past simply because they had a salary.

They need to shut down childcare and welfare aimed at supporting children and their carers (most of which are women) if they want women at home.

Original poster
OtherS · 15/09/2025 14:04

@NotABiscuitInSight

Oh, I agree. I think we should be working to carefully manage population decline, not continue with a pyramid scheme whereby we need to keep expanding populations to look after the increasing numbers of pensioners. I think globally there are far too many people for the planet's resources, and that's far more of an issue in 'developed' nations who are consuming vastly more than their fair share.

I was just set to musing by the conversations on the right that seem to want to return women to an oppressed underclass whose only purpose is breeding, and of course attending to their husband's every need. So I wondered whether female subjugation is actually necessary in order to convince us to have enough babies to maintain the population. And according to this entirely unscientific poll, it is not. Which is good news!

OP posts:
NotABiscuitInSight · 15/09/2025 11:09

Finances have nothing to do woth it for us.

I didn't want 2 Kids. I wanted 1 or 3+. Husband wanted 1.

We went for 1. I can't imagine how another child would fit into my life now.

We are all so close, we have full flexibility to follow her in life and support her, no worries about one child at one end the country and another at the other.

Our life can centre around her as long as we all want to (we don't suffocate her haha, she will be able to see us and have us involved as much or as little as she wants).

Deep down, I struggled with being a mum (tiredness and patience) and multiples would have made me a worse mum to all kids while they were small so it was a no brainer to stop).

Fwiw I don't think we need to replace out population, there are shitloads more humans than the world can support to live in a modern way. If there were only 20% as many humans we could probably use all the fossil fuel we want and chuck plastic in then ocean for generations before it caught up with us. Or we could all live like the Amazonian tribes and catch and kill our dinner, no modern healthcare and support millions more people. The world can't support existing numbers of people to live like we are now.

ObtuseMoose · 15/09/2025 11:08

Still none.

Oneborneverydecade · 15/09/2025 11:05

SerendipityDiamond · 13/09/2025 17:52

We have 3. Might have had 4 if started earlier and one of them wasn’t such a terrible sleeper.

I had multiple losses so my 3 are spread out. If I'd had them closer I might have liked another one or two. But only with more space and money than we currently have.

JHound · 15/09/2025 11:01

If I had had a solid partner I would have had 4. Instead I had 0.