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:
ravenclaworslytherin · 13/09/2025 20:28

I've got three, if money wasn't an issue I would've loved to have four. However with two parents working full time, it's difficult enough juggling work, school and extra curricular activities

avocadotofu · 13/09/2025 20:28

Still one.

FixTheBone · 13/09/2025 20:28

5....

We actually have 7. Mrs FixTheBone l thought was never going to stop wanting more, but was suddenly satisified with 7.

I thought 5 was a good number, especially as there is a 7 year gap between 1 and 2, and a 4 year gap between 3 and 4, the others are all in pairs. I feel like the middle child has been a bit ignored / not had quife as much of me as the others...

AhBiscuits · 13/09/2025 20:28

We have 2 and it's enough. DH and I take one each sometimes so they get one on one time. I can grab one with each hand if necessary.

weasleylover · 13/09/2025 20:27

Have 3, and would love to double it.

feelingalittlehorse · 13/09/2025 20:27

Always presumed I’d have three; but now mid thirties and recovering from a second loss, I suspect it will be one or two (or I hope and pray!).

So my reduction in birth rate will be due to age and fertility- not due to finances.

stayathomer · 13/09/2025 20:27

We have 4. I always find it sad when you see people listing all these ‘I’ll have a baby if these things align’ because life throws everything and anything at you and for the most part a lot of people find a way. I think different numbers suit different people and get that 4 seems too many for many

Moreteaandchocolate · 13/09/2025 20:25

NoahDia · 13/09/2025 17:44

I can't really vote because you've made it far too specific.

I wanted to vote YANBU but 3 is my chosen number.

Same

Crunchienuts · 13/09/2025 20:23

I have two, I would have two or three but no more.

WhatALightbulbMoment · 13/09/2025 20:18

I'd have had 4. We stopped at 3 because I couldn't face any more sleepless nights, and DH was terrified of another pregnancy loss. Money wasn't an issue (we're not wealthy, but could have managed with 4 if that's what we really wanted).

Dogaredabomb · 13/09/2025 20:15

Before having children I assumed I wanted 4 or 5. But two is my number, for me it's the emotional bandwidth, I can't do more people!

SunflowerNSunshine · 13/09/2025 20:14

Always zero. We don’t have money worries, haven’t had since we were mid 20’s and we’re now mid 40’s.

QuantumPanic · 13/09/2025 20:13

If money was no object, four. As it is, hoping for two.

Didimum · 13/09/2025 20:07

1 or 2. I don’t think people had more kids years back due to wanting that many. I think sex education and contraception were worse.

cheesycheesy · 13/09/2025 20:05

I have 2. Would love 4 but will stop at 2.

Fearfulsaints · 13/09/2025 20:04

One, I stopped for health reasons.

There's no way I'd risk another pregnancy. Especially in places with no abortion, id be terrified if i was going to die and medics wouldn't intervene.

Without health, but better finances, id have had 4.

JonathanGirl · 13/09/2025 20:03

If money was no object, I think I would have had four.
But DH wanted to stop at two, and I think wouldn’t have wanted more even if we were millionaires.
It’s up to both people in the relationship, not just the mother.

lrjh · 13/09/2025 20:03

I would have four. I have four. Two adopted two biological.

However, on the YABU, with all the money in the world I wouldn’t keep my job, and I don’t care about me, figure. Interesting nobody even mentions that either. Not even a consideration. Which is so refreshingly lovely.

and on the YANBU

I would never have a nanny or someone else helping so that doesn’t fit me either.

so if I had all the money in the world, I wouldn’t change what I have, but I would help those who are so desperate for a child, and cannot. That, to me, is the greatest injustice.

MinnieMountain · 13/09/2025 19:57

One. We could have afforded to have more but didn’t want to.

Cheepcheepcheep · 13/09/2025 19:57

OtherS · 13/09/2025 19:13

Interesting. So I've been doing a little maths and so far we seem to be averaging 2.4 babies each. So if society and the economy were such that women really could have it all, according to this entirely unscientific poll we would just about be meeting replacement birth rate (2.1). Of course, this is a parenting forum on a Saturday night, so it might not be entirely accurate... Although page 2 only averaged 2.1 babies, so maybe we're now having more as the non-parents have hit the town!

I think I thought it would be worse. It sounds like we don't need to go full right-wing Handmaid's Tale to have enough babies to not die out - we just need to order society so that women have endless wealth. And pain free childbirth. And perfectly behaved, sleepy children. And good health. And the right man. Plus solve climate change. Whilst building bigger houses and cars. So that's encouraging!

(@KingOfPoundbury, I'm not sure your post was meant for this thread - I think 40 would certainly be ambitious, but would unreasonably skew my stats so I'm leaving you out, sorry!)

This is a really interesting point OP. We have a 4 bed house (and room to extend) so maybe I wouldn’t have needed to win the lottery. I would however have needed to jack in my job because we can’t survive on one income.

I am dyed in the wool feminist but I fully acknowledge that a world that needs two incomes to survive is what has pushed fertility rates off a cliff.

RitaFires · 13/09/2025 19:55

For a long time even one seemed like a crazy dream but thanks to IVF I now have a baby. Ideally I'd have one or two more but my age is definitely a consideration. I'm from a big family and felt that I got overlooked a lot growing up because there just wasn't enough time for everyone so I wouldn't want to have more kids than I could devote time to.

namechangetheworld · 13/09/2025 19:55

I would have 4. I have 2. If we won the lottery tomorrow we would go for it straight away. Money is literally the only thing making it impossible.

I would never be selfish enough to risk DC's present lifestyle without the funds to do it.

Cynic17 · 13/09/2025 19:54

The same as now, ie zero, because finances are not the determining factor.

Cheepcheepcheep · 13/09/2025 19:53

I’ve always said if we won the lottery so could afford all the help, we’d have 4.

We have two. Would love a third but it would stretch us to the point of changing the lifestyle which would be unfair to DC1 and 2.

SweetBaklava · 13/09/2025 19:51

We have 2 and would have had 4 if finances had allowed. Most of the people I know with one child had difficulties conceiving and would have loved one more.

Swipe left for the next trending thread