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:
Keepingittogetherstepbystep · 13/09/2025 19:49

I'd have liked to have a choice but medical staff kept saying I wasn't ill it was in my head. By the time they realised it wasn't in head it was too late, got nuked and choice taken away.

RandomUsernameHere · 13/09/2025 19:48

I would have liked three but DH wanted to stop at two. It wasn’t due to lack of money or resources, he just didn’t want three.

Harriet9955 · 13/09/2025 19:43

I have four and would definitely have the same if money money wasn't an issue although I do find the constant worry of four a bit much.

VivaForever81 · 13/09/2025 19:41

In the ideal world you describe I would have had three instead of the one I have.

NotPerfectlyAdverage · 13/09/2025 19:41

I am a outlier here but I'd have 6. I already have more than 2. Never wanted kids. Until I had my first at 29.

However I didn't stop due to money. It's age, toll on my health ( pregnancy and birth) but even more it's not what my existing kids wanted. If we was like the Waltons I'd go on forever. I'm a massive contradiction I get that.

FlatErica · 13/09/2025 19:41

None!

Mixingitup · 13/09/2025 19:41

I'd have another if I could guarantee my health

Joelz · 13/09/2025 19:41

I would have had 3 - but I had 2 hard pregnancies and I wasn't getting any younger, so that was it.

Underthemoon1 · 13/09/2025 19:37

I have 2 and have the space and money for more but not the energy. I might have had a third if DH and I had started earlier so we could have had them a bit more spaced out (and if it hadn't taken 2 years and a stillborn DD before DC'1' arrived).

DidIForgetPEAgain · 13/09/2025 19:36

I wish I’d started earlier, with the support you list - 4?

RomeoRivers · 13/09/2025 19:26

I’ve got 3, I wanted 5, will have at least 4.

No financial constraints, but I started off with 3 miscarriages which took their toll and I hate child birth.

If I could have lovely quick pain-free home births, I would have 6 😂

SouthernBelle21 · 13/09/2025 19:24

I have none, because I don't want to bring them into a household that always has to struggle for money, and scrimp and save on everything possible.

If I won the lottery, I'd buy a bigger house, have about 4 kids (any more and I feel they don't get enough individual attention) and give them the life I dreamed of. That wouldn't be spoiled, but they would be warm, comfortable, fed, loved, always have what they need for school, and go on holiday every year (including UK holidays as there's so much to see and learn about here!)

I honestly would love to be able to do that, but I absolutely refuse to have a child knowing full well that it would be a struggle. It's not fair on them. I had enough friends when I was growing up who lived in messy council houses and never had new clothes or anywhere near the latest tech. And yeah sure, that's not the be all and end all, and kids don't have to have everything, but they shouldn't have nothing, either!

Mumofsoontobe3 · 13/09/2025 19:23

I've got 3, my heart is very full and I've had my absolute limit. I'm stretching myself with three and I wouldn't be able to pour as much love, care and attention into anymore. It's not so much the financial impact but meeting all physical and emotional needs of the children.

SouthLondonMum22 · 13/09/2025 19:22

I think 2 is the ideal number. I have 3 because twins and it's fine but 2 would've been easier.

Antimimisti · 13/09/2025 19:20

zero.

My financial and life circumstances played no part in my choice not to have children (now in my 50s so a done deal).

Greebosmum · 13/09/2025 19:19

I always wanted 4 but then I had one and it wasn't quite what I expected. I did go on to have another. If I could have a nanny to help and money was no object I would definitely have had 4.

Perplexed20 · 13/09/2025 19:18

Iocainepowder · 13/09/2025 18:30

I have 2.

This week, one hasn’t let me sleep, and the other has hit me.

So regardless of money etc, if i can could back in time i would have none. And i would encourage people to do the same.

I remember those days...but nw at the other end, probably 4. I had 2.
What stopped me having more was money and impact on my career.

bettyfloormop · 13/09/2025 19:16

I would have liked 3, have 2.

Dramatic · 13/09/2025 19:16

I've got 4 and I'd probably have 7 or 8, maybe more if I could.

IsawwhatIsaw · 13/09/2025 19:15

2 was plenty

Orrrrricantcopewithstress · 13/09/2025 19:13

Financially I could have more ( I have 2 ) but I know I wouldn't be able to spread myself between anymore than 2,

Original poster
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!)

OP posts:
OnlyFoolsnMothers · 13/09/2025 19:13

2 always only 2. Even with money and space it’s a lot of raise children and I don’t have it in me to take on more. I also like the dynamic of 2, they have a friend and no one is left out.

MrsApplepants · 13/09/2025 19:11

One. Which is what I have and is the perfect number for us.

Titasaducksarse · 13/09/2025 19:09

Zero

Swipe left for the next trending thread