Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

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:
TheMauveBeaker · 14/09/2025 20:56

Just the one. No way I was ever doing that again.

stargirl1701 · 14/09/2025 20:58

We planned to have 3. Eldest is autistic. We could not have coped with 3 autistic children.

PrincessHoneysuckle · 14/09/2025 21:02

One which is what I have now.

whatsit84 · 14/09/2025 21:14

I have two, which I’m very happy with, but if no money or time worries I’d probably have been tempted with a 3rd, as would DH.

DameEdnaAverage2 · 14/09/2025 21:21

Have 1 and only want 1. The noise, omg the noise. Nope. One and done!

fatimashortbread · 14/09/2025 22:02
Swissmeringue · 14/09/2025 22:05

We have 2, I think without any external factors to consider we'd have liked 4. We're in a pretty good position now and could probably afford more but it's taken us long enough to get here so now I'm 39 and DH is 46 and he is pretty adamant he's too old which is fair enough.

JungAtHeart · 14/09/2025 22:35

I lucked out. I wanted two DDs, 18 months apart … and I was blessed with just that … give or take nine days 😂 I wouldn’t change it for the world!

Rhaenys · 14/09/2025 23:13

I’d have 3 but I think I’m getting a bit old now given that I don’t want them very close together.

BlackeyedSusan · 15/09/2025 00:01

I would have liked four. Good job I didn't as health has taken a dive and I make bendy autistic kids.

Realistically I would have had 3 doing exams this summer if so plus 5 more years of school.

Miaminmoo · 15/09/2025 01:29

I’ve got 2 hands so I’ve got 2 children - I was an only child myself and although I had a lovely childhood I have had periods of wishing that I had a sibling as once I lose my parents I will feel very alone. And yes I appreciate that if I did have a sibling we might not get on and whatever but even so, occasionally I wonder what it would have been like. So I had 2 children.

dEdiCatEdFeliNeEntHusiAst · 15/09/2025 03:20

TheOtherAgentJohnson · 13/09/2025 17:41

Zero. You couldn’t pay me.

This ^

Flossy1985 · 15/09/2025 05:57

I would have liked another it’s nothing to do with money for me. I didn’t think I could have them after having a huge cyst removal and then other health problems relating to said surgery. I lost one then my DS came along and it was such a bad experience I just can’t go through that now at my age. I’m happy I have my baby who is thriving 💙

SamkaSabrinka · 15/09/2025 06:01

If I had the money/husband then 6-7

Snakebite61 · 15/09/2025 09:30

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.

I'm nearly 64 and never had kids.
I've had the time of my life and regret nothing.

LoveLifeBeHappy · 15/09/2025 10:24

2 - I don't want any more. Life is too hard as it is.

CharlotteYorkMacDougal · 15/09/2025 10:27

We initially hoped for three children but due to being thirty-three when I met my husband then having infertility and needing three rounds of IVF we will almost definitely stick to two (and be incredibly grateful for what we have). I’m due to give birth to the second next month and we still have some frozen embryos so in theory we could try again for a third child.

I’m not really concerned about any of the things listed in the OP, my reasons for not wanting to have another include; my age (and needing realistically to leave another smallish age gap as I’m already in my forties), the age and likely future support needs of my parents, my capacity to look after an another child (especially if any turn out to have additional needs), additional risks of pregnancy and birth at an older age/ wanting to focus on my health so I have the best chance to live long enough to support the children in adulthood and wanting to get back to work before my previous career experience becomes completely irrelevant (currently a SAHP) so I could support us financially if anything happened to my husband.

We live in a cheaper house than we could have afforded, drive older cars, don’t go on holiday much and buy most of our clothes/ toys secondhand, none of which bothers me. My social life is a bit limited but I’ve made some new friends through baby/toddler activities and everyone’s in the same boat at the moment. Most of the people I know who are sticking with one child are doing so either because of fertility issues or their/ partner’s age - in some cases the ages could be linked to wanting to be financially secure before having children but I think most of them it’s because they didn’t meet their partner until they were older.

Sdpbody · 15/09/2025 10:59

I have always wanted 4 but we stopped at 2 as we have chosen the private route for school.

JHound · 15/09/2025 11:01

If I had had a solid partner I would have had 4. Instead I had 0.

Oneborneverydecade · 15/09/2025 11:05

SerendipityDiamond · 13/09/2025 17:52

We have 3. Might have had 4 if started earlier and one of them wasn’t such a terrible sleeper.

I had multiple losses so my 3 are spread out. If I'd had them closer I might have liked another one or two. But only with more space and money than we currently have.

ObtuseMoose · 15/09/2025 11:08

Still none.

NotABiscuitInSight · 15/09/2025 11:09

Finances have nothing to do woth it for us.

I didn't want 2 Kids. I wanted 1 or 3+. Husband wanted 1.

We went for 1. I can't imagine how another child would fit into my life now.

We are all so close, we have full flexibility to follow her in life and support her, no worries about one child at one end the country and another at the other.

Our life can centre around her as long as we all want to (we don't suffocate her haha, she will be able to see us and have us involved as much or as little as she wants).

Deep down, I struggled with being a mum (tiredness and patience) and multiples would have made me a worse mum to all kids while they were small so it was a no brainer to stop).

Fwiw I don't think we need to replace out population, there are shitloads more humans than the world can support to live in a modern way. If there were only 20% as many humans we could probably use all the fossil fuel we want and chuck plastic in then ocean for generations before it caught up with us. Or we could all live like the Amazonian tribes and catch and kill our dinner, no modern healthcare and support millions more people. The world can't support existing numbers of people to live like we are now.

Original poster
OtherS · 15/09/2025 14:04

@NotABiscuitInSight

Oh, I agree. I think we should be working to carefully manage population decline, not continue with a pyramid scheme whereby we need to keep expanding populations to look after the increasing numbers of pensioners. I think globally there are far too many people for the planet's resources, and that's far more of an issue in 'developed' nations who are consuming vastly more than their fair share.

I was just set to musing by the conversations on the right that seem to want to return women to an oppressed underclass whose only purpose is breeding, and of course attending to their husband's every need. So I wondered whether female subjugation is actually necessary in order to convince us to have enough babies to maintain the population. And according to this entirely unscientific poll, it is not. Which is good news!

OP posts:
NotABiscuitInSight · 15/09/2025 15:10

OtherS · 15/09/2025 14:04

@NotABiscuitInSight

Oh, I agree. I think we should be working to carefully manage population decline, not continue with a pyramid scheme whereby we need to keep expanding populations to look after the increasing numbers of pensioners. I think globally there are far too many people for the planet's resources, and that's far more of an issue in 'developed' nations who are consuming vastly more than their fair share.

I was just set to musing by the conversations on the right that seem to want to return women to an oppressed underclass whose only purpose is breeding, and of course attending to their husband's every need. So I wondered whether female subjugation is actually necessary in order to convince us to have enough babies to maintain the population. And according to this entirely unscientific poll, it is not. Which is good news!

The trouble is that women no longer need men for anything other than sperm so we can be choosy.

Which means a great many men aren't even tolerated by women, hence incel culture and the Angry Small Man culture is on the rise.

Many women would now rather be poor single mums (or childless!) than accept low quality men that could have gotten away with all sorts in the past simply because they had a salary.

They need to shut down childcare and welfare aimed at supporting children and their carers (most of which are women) if they want women at home.

Original poster
OtherS · 15/09/2025 16:06

NotABiscuitInSight · 15/09/2025 15:10

The trouble is that women no longer need men for anything other than sperm so we can be choosy.

Which means a great many men aren't even tolerated by women, hence incel culture and the Angry Small Man culture is on the rise.

Many women would now rather be poor single mums (or childless!) than accept low quality men that could have gotten away with all sorts in the past simply because they had a salary.

They need to shut down childcare and welfare aimed at supporting children and their carers (most of which are women) if they want women at home.

Show quote history

If they just shut down childcare, it's possible that more women simply wouldn't have children. If they want women back at home I think they also need to convince more women have babies, whilst making it hard for mothers to go it alone, or continue working. I definitely do feel that the fearmongering about population decline has more to do with wanting women back under men's control than genuine concern, else we'd hear more talk of making life easier for single / working mothers and keeping older people healthier longer so we need fewer carers. The only solution I seem to hear for falling birth rates is reversing women's rights, and keeping us barefoot and pregnant. Which is apparently in our best interests, as we'd be so much happier if we reject feminism and defer to men.

OP posts: