I know, nobody saying OP is a bad parent, but when you have one you hardly see, why want more?
Sorry but I really don't agree with this.
When I had each of my children they were in nursery 8am-6pm, from four months old, 4 days a week.
I had to work.
And because I worked, advanced in my career, started my own business, they're now 6 and 10 and I'm there to send them off to school and I'm here when they get home. I take afternoons off for the park and walks and playdates and family visits. I work nights in the holidays so we can have day-trips, trips abroad etc.
Life changes, often in unexpected ways. People can have a child when they work 60 hours a week and win the lottery, or get made redundant, the next year. They can have a child as a part time worker and get promoted to a full time, full on, 2 hour commute role.
And even if OP never changes roles, and works 40 hours a week until they are 18 - children don't just vanish at 18! I see my mum twice a week and visit one set of grandparents weekly and the other (pre-covid restrictions) fortnightly.
My single parent mum worked full time shift work when I was growing up and sometimes I went days without seeing her. Now approaching 30, we have a pretty solid relationship and I'm rather happy she went on to have my brother (who lives less than a mile away and who I also see regularly). If she took your advice I wouldn't have a brother (and probably wouldn't be here either!)
Perhaps this odd attitude is so common on MN because apparently everyone moves a four hour drive away from their parents, with the in-laws four hours in the opposite direction. It does explain how every second poster is a SAHM - with no family around to help, it does make working full time in a career problematic. A very middle-class mumsnetty attitude though.