How Many Children Would You Have...

[OtherS]

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.

I would have liked 3, have 2.

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.

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.

zero.

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

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

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.

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!

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 😂

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

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).

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

I'd have another if I could guarantee my health

None!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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