Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

10 kids? To judge it not to judge?

354 replies

Sekena · 13/03/2023 18:45

I don't have 10 kids lol BUT boyfriends Dad was one of 10 - boyfriend's dad was a 'rainbow' baby born after a stillbirth -although doubt if this term was used then. Boyfriend himself is one of 5 - and all the sibs get on.

On MN - you get for instance a lot of 'only child' threads and parents potential guilt for not providing siblings and the opinions on these quite rightly are overwhelmingly that onlies don't miss out and these only child stereotypes are nonsense - which I completely agree with - I firmly believe an only child can thrive and doesn't need siblings. However - I also believe that a child in a large family can also thrive - just like my boyfriend's dad did. However if I was to say I'd like 10 kids - would I be judged ? I haven't decided on this at all - I'm currently pregnant with my second - but honestly felt my DD thrived as an only so definitely didn't conceive to give Dd a sibling - am delighted for this child in its own right !

I'm currently open minded about family size and am a SAHM. But what are your opinions on families of 10 like my boyfriends Dad's - WIBU if this is what I wanted ?

OP posts:
Fizbosshoes · 14/03/2023 10:07

Just to be clear I know most people having any children at all do it for their own desire and not for altruistic reasons!

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 10:08

Just to be clear I know most people having any children at all do it for their own desire and not for altruistic reasons!

agree

WhatATimeToBeAlive · 14/03/2023 10:11

Having a big family today is very selfish.

TheaBrandt · 14/03/2023 10:13

Always remember a line in a Fay Weldon book on this “life is for living not just passing on”. What sort of life does a mother of 10 have (a normal one not one of the City superwomen with hot and cold running nannies). It’s drudge enough with 2.

There’s a thread going by women in their early 50s who no longer give a shit and are fed up of doing the the physical and emotional labour of being a mother - which is relatable. How could you do that for 10? Why?

TomeTome · 14/03/2023 10:13

Having any children at all is selfish.

RoomOfRequirement · 14/03/2023 10:13

There surely comes a point where there is no way you can give each child the love, care and attention they deserve. 10 is too many for that reason alone. It's not fair on them.

mydogisthebest · 14/03/2023 10:23

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 08:42

Unless they are going private for all the births (unlikely) they are costing the NHS a fortune. A normal birth with no complications costs the NHS around £10,000. Yet people think it is ok to have 4, 5, 6, 7 or more children!

I have 4 children.

And?

4 is too many in my opinion. There may not be that many families of 10 or more but there are loads with 4 and 5.

TomeTome · 14/03/2023 10:27

Presumably the cost of birth/death and everything in between is shouldered by the person who is born and it all balances out or we’d be limiting how many expensive women we allowed.

TomeTome · 14/03/2023 10:29

There surely comes a point where there is no way you can give each child the love, care and attention they deserve.

and this is the sticking point, how much IS that?

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 10:30

*And?

4 is too many in my opinion. There may not be that many families of 10 or more but there are loads with 4 and 5.*

My OH also cost the NHS an absolute fortune when he had chemotherapy.

Just interested what you think is the right number?

SquanderedAgain · 14/03/2023 10:40

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 10:30

*And?

4 is too many in my opinion. There may not be that many families of 10 or more but there are loads with 4 and 5.*

My OH also cost the NHS an absolute fortune when he had chemotherapy.

Just interested what you think is the right number?

But then, are you happy to subsidise my life if I get fed up of my job and just don't fancy working? I wouldn't judge someone with four kids per se, but if you're just continually having children like 22 kids and counting etc. it's just like why?

Most people would agree saving someone's life is a good use of money even if expensive- we'd all want it for us and our loved ones.

There are other uses of money we disapprove of. It's a matter of opinion.

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 10:45

*But then, are you happy to subsidise my life if I get fed up of my job and just don't fancy working? I wouldn't judge someone with four kids per se, but if you're just continually having children like 22 kids and counting etc. it's just like why?

Most people would agree saving someone's life is a good use of money even if expensive- we'd all want it for us and our loved ones.

There are other uses of money we disapprove of. It's a matter of opinion.*

No way do I advocate for super large families!!!
You've got the wrong poster. @SquanderedAgain

I was just replying to someone who says it was wrong to have 4 ( or more ) because of how much their births cost the NHS.

I do have 4.

TomeTome · 14/03/2023 10:49

I wouldn't judge someone with four kids per se, so 4 is ok but not 5? Why? What criteria are you judging against?

Honestly I have no problem with people judging but it’s a bit weird not to know what your cut offs are and why they are what they are.

ImAvingOops · 14/03/2023 10:54

I wouldn't judge the large families that existed in the past - life was different then, but I would judge negatively a family having 10 children now.

I have 4 and am a sahp. We just about had enough money to raise them/help them through university/provide help with housing. And because I was a sahp, I was able to give each child the time and attention they needed - my older dc have never been asked to help bring up the youngest. But the more children you have, the harder this becomes.
Even if you are rich, with a big house, you can't split yourself into 10 pieces, to give children enough proper parenting - you would have too many kids close in age, who need lots of attention.

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 10:54

I wouldn't judge someone with four kids per se, so 4 is ok but not 5? Why? What criteria are you judging against?

Honestly I have no problem with people judging but it’s a bit weird not to know what your cut offs are and why they are what they are.

Agree. And how they came to that conclusion.

Judging by how much a live birth costs the NHS is a very tricky debate.

Would you judge someone for that cost more than people who do an extreme sport or even rugby say and need patching up? Or drink, smokes, eats unhealthily and needs the NHS when they suffer consequences?
Personally I wouldn't go there.

DowntownRegret1 · 14/03/2023 10:57

I would judge, yes.

It's simply not possible to give TEN children your complete love and attention and everything they need. Sure, you could probably do a half assed job of it and people would survive. But it's not what I'd want for any child, to be one of ten.

Botw1 · 14/03/2023 11:00

If you have a large family you're unlikely to agree with anyone's reasoning as to why it's too large

So I'm not sure what difference it makes

I just don't get it is unlikely to satisfy your curiosity but that's what it boils down to

I don't get why you'd want to keep having kids when you've already got 1 or 2.

1or 2 should be enough

Bensmum1988 · 14/03/2023 11:03

I think having five kids is loads and plenty for all the qualities of a big family so I think I’d be interested why this already big number wasn’t enough and was actually doubled! So, despite being aware of the environmental impact, judgement wouldn’t be my initial response - if the family can afford ten kids and they all have a good life. I would be more inclined to if all the children spent little time with their parents; I’d wonder what was the point/reason in having more and more. I’d definitely judge, though, if the children were not provided for properly.

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 11:05

If you have a large family you're unlikely to agree with anyone's reasoning as to why it's too large

Lots are here for the debate tbh.

But fair play you've said what large equals to you.

Over 2.

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 11:08

10 is clearly mind blowing but not many are willing to say what is their max size.

Botw1 · 14/03/2023 11:11

@sunglassesonthetable

Actually large to me is 4 or over

I don't get why anyone would want more than 1 or 2 but I don't think 3 is particularly large

4 and above is

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 11:13

👍🏻

nicetoseetgesunsout · 14/03/2023 11:17

I wouldn't want to be one of those kids. My nan was one of 13 but that was before contraception was readily available. Two were left on my great Nans doorstep (London) She brought them up as her own.
I have a friend with six children but they are wealthy so have a nanny and a cleaner.

SafferUpNorth · 14/03/2023 11:19

I would totally judge - 10 kids in this day and age is unjustifiable on every level. Environmentally damaging. Draining on public funds. Emotionally less than ideal for the children themselves. People with large families are simply selfish.

AS for the ideal number - well, I have one. Perfect for me. I'd say the max is two - for a couple to replace themselves (if they feel they need to). But guess what.... unless you're sure you're going to birth the next Einstein, the world doesn't need your offspring.

sunglassesonthetable · 14/03/2023 11:26

But guess what.... unless you're sure you're going to birth the next Einstein, the world doesn't need your offspring.

Totally get why you wouldn't want 10 kids. 🙌 Same.

But for the sake of balance, at least 5 countries in Europe are trying to raise their birth rates right now to stave off demographic crisis.