If money was no object, how many kids would you have?

[Trueqe]

I have a friend who said to me the other day that there is a window for childbearing and in her opinion the goal is to have as many as we can whilst we can….money is no object for her as she is very rich.

I always end up feeling less maternal as I don’t agree with this at all. I have two kids and want to give them the best of me, having more than that, I just feel I’d be outnumbered and knackered and even if money were no object I really think I’d feel the same way.

Curious to see how other people feel?

YANBU - I’d stick with the number I’ve got if money was no object
YABU - Hell yeah, if I was loaded I’d have more, the more the better

We would still stick at two, more money wouldn’t buy more quality 1:1 time with our children, I don’t think its fair on children for their parents to be spread too thinly between them.

We adopted two and were asked if we'd consider a birth sibling and our feelings on that made it clear we were both on the same page, two is perfect.
I now realise it would have been awful for DD to be a middle child as she's already overlooked enough by DS additional needs.

Still one I think, I would think about it a bit more maybe, because of the possibility to hire lots of help, but I still don’t think I’d go through pregnancy and birth again.

Currently have 1 but would likely have 2 if money no issue. Can't even afford the 1 right now thanks to all these col hikes.

It wouldn’t have changed the number of children I had. My experiences growing up had more influence than money.

None, think if the planet and the world state right now, it's horrific

But if everyone thought the same, what would happen in 80 years…

It's not money for me. It's how tough I find being pregnant.

If I could afford a surrogate, I'd definitely have a third. As I can't, I'm not sure I ever will.

I have 3.

If money as no object probably 5 or 6.

The same 2 dc but closer together in age. If money wasn't an issue I wouldn't have to have paid childcare and could afford them
Closer together

4

I'd still have two, because it's the responsible thing to do for the planet, and each child can have dedicated attention. Your friend, sorry, is an idiot.

If money and the environment, health, career and relationship were no object, might have about 7 to see all the different genetic combinations that would turn up. Having big families is great fun and teaches good social skills. Also strength in numbers in local affairs.

I would probably have 4. I think having the freedom not to worry about the mortgage and being able to pay for support with the children and housework would would mean my husband would go for it. He's drawn the line at 3.

There is no amount of money that would make me consider pregnancy or childbirth again after horrible experiences, but I would adopt or foster kids if money were no object.

I have 2 but I think I'd have a 3rd if money was no object. Financially we can't afford another one and my mental health took quite a hammering after DC2 but I do have a bit of a longing for another baby.

Well I don't know, I have 2 and whilst money was a consideration it wasn't the only reason we stopped.

Would I have more if I was rich enough to outsource a lot of childcare? Probably not because it's still me having to be their parent emotionally and go through pregnancy but I wouldn't know until I was in that position.

At the minute I feel like I don't have enough time for everything that parenting entails as well as working and looking after myself so another child would be a disaster.

If I had never worked I might suddenly find that I actually enjoy parenting a lot more because I'm not as under pressure. Same as if I could afford an adhoc nanny to do the bits I don't like like the school drop off!

The last people would die then the planet would heal.

Tbh money is no object for me. I am 33 and expecting my fourth in June. I will probably stop at six, that seems like a good number for me.

I do have a cleaner, gardener and nanny as well as family support so I still get to socialise with DH and with my friends.

Ideally I would have liked 4 (probably because I am one of 4).

We stopped at 2, partly because of finances and partly because of age (I was 36 when I had the first and 38 with the second. Husband is 10 years older than I am).

The environmental impact didn't occur to me at the time (children both now in their 20s) but these days, I'd consider that.

I always wanted four children and a dog, but stopped at two and a dog, as I realized that I couldn’t cope with more, financially or physically. 😂

But, if money were no object, I’d look into adopting or fostering two more children as we would have a cleaner, gardener, etc. We have a lot of love to give and I think DH and I make a pretty good team as parents-not boasting, but we complement each other emotionally and skills-wise (what one lacks, the other has, iyswim).

I don’t think that having more children myself would’ve been a good idea, I seem to have large babies and it’s been a strain on my small frame!

Oh, I probably should have said, DH is 34 and will be happy with six. He has four siblings and had a happy childhood.

He might start asking questions if I wanted more than six though 🤣 We also have cats and two large dogs.

3 or 4.

I can afford to be a SAHP, but I think I'd want Nanny money as well as being comfortable as a SAHP if I had that many.

Still two.

Not just the money, its mentally and emotionally coping as well. I would be pushing my coping skills and thresholds to the brink.

No one who has kids has had them for for the good of society, lets be real.
They have them, because they want them.