C-sections are widely regarded by the medical establishment as safer and superior to natural vaginal birth, despite the absence of solid scientific evidence supporting such claims. In reality, the routine use of C-sections often functions as legal protection for doctors and hospitals. By manufacturing a false emergency that does not actually exist, a physician can generate fear around a potentially complicated delivery. If complications arise during or after the C-section, they can be conveniently attributed to the so-called “high-risk” nature of the birth—when in fact, had the child been delivered naturally, the risks would have been negligible or significantly lower.

While there may be rare instances in which a C-section is medically necessary, such cases are the exception, not the norm. They do not reflect the needs of the average healthy mother.

The modern justification for C-sections is built upon two false assumptions:

1. That the mother is in danger if allowed to give birth naturally—implying, absurdly, that God designed a defective body incapable of knowing when or how to deliver a child.

2. That the baby is endangered if left to be born naturally—suggesting, again irrationally, that God neglected to include the necessary mechanisms to ensure a healthy birth process.

Let us now examine the actual scientific research—studies your doctor or nurse likely won’t show you, not always out of deceit, but because they themselves are often unaware of it.

Neonatal Mortality Rates

While the medical community uses small-sample studies and fear to justify their push for caesarean delivery, natural vaginal birth has the support not only of the vast majority of human history and experience but also of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence.

What if you were to examine 8 million births and look at all the neonatal deaths associated with those pregnancies—what would you find? We don’t have to guess. That study was conducted and published in 2008. The results are astounding: mortality rates were almost 2.5 times higher for cesarean deliveries compared to planned vaginal deliveries. The authors concluded, “Cesarean deliveries with no labor complications or procedures remained at a 69 percent higher risk of neonatal mortality than planned vaginal deliveries.”^[1]Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an “intention-to-treat” model

Maternal Outcomes

In a study of almost half a million births over a five-year period, it was found that there is a 155% increase in rehospitalization of the mother within the first 30 days after birth among planned cesarean deliveries, compared to planned vaginal births. In other words, mothers who chose vaginal birth had a 60% lower risk of being rehospitalized within the first month. The researchers controlled for age, parity, race, ethnicity, and other confounding factors.^[2]Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births

In another, even larger population study from the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s Discharge Abstract Database, involving 900,108 women aged 15–44 who were giving birth to a single child (not twins), the risk of maternal postpartum readmission was evaluated. It was found that “cesarean delivery was associated with a significantly increased risk of postpartum readmission.”^[3]Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery

So why would hospitals push a procedure that is both unnecessary (in almost every case) and dangerous? Because the average cost—meaning profit for the hospital—of a C-section delivery is 76% higher than that of a natural vaginal birth. Also, the average hospital stay was 77% longer for C-section births.^[4]Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births

Think of the extra money the hospital business (yes, it is a business) makes by pushing this procedure.

Maternal Mortality

Compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery, all other modes of delivery were associated with an increased risk of maternal death. Yes, you read that correctly: natural vaginal birth is the safest mode of delivery for the mother. Researchers writing in the British Medical Journal noted that “Caesarean sections were associated with an intrinsic risk of increased severe maternal outcomes. We conclude that caesarean sections should be performed when a clear benefit is anticipated.”^[5]Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health

Therefore, unless a clear, demonstrable benefit exists that outweighs the presumed risk of natural birth, the intrinsic hazards of a cesarean section should be categorically avoided.

The corrupt World Health Organization — the same WHO that promoted global lockdowns which became one of the greatest threats to the poor and underprivileged — has sponsored deeply flawed studies purporting that C-sections save lives. These studies are not based on robust, verifiable data but on imputed data, polished up to generate the statistics they desired. This comes from the same organization that promotes the political term “pregnant people” instead of the scientifically accurate “pregnant mother.”

---

Future Pregnancies Risk

While a successful natural vaginal birth decreases risk for future pregnancies, a cesarean section increases all risks. The medical community attributes this effect to a supposed — but in reality manufactured — risk associated with pregnancy. They convince the mother that her situation is unique, exceptional, and perilous, thereby framing the negative consequences of their harmful intervention as merely the result of a pre-existing danger that was, in truth, never present.

In the Journal of Perinatology, researchers analyzed maternal and neonatal data from 2002 to 2003 and concluded that compared to natural vaginal birth:

“Prior CS patients without trial of labor (TOL) required more blood transfusions, intensive care unit admissions, and hospital readmissions than women with a prior VD. Prior CS patients with TOL required more aminoglycosides for postpartum infection. Term neonates of (CS) mothers without a TOL were more likely to have prolonged hospitalization and require ventilatory support.”^[6]Previous cesarean section and the risk of postpartum maternal complications and adverse neonatal outcomes in future pregnancies

It is critical to recognize that C-section readmissions include complications not seen in natural birth readmissions. In other words, cesarean delivery does not merely amplify natural birth-related complications; it actively creates new ones that mothers who deliver naturally would never face.

In an observational study of 30,000 women, it was found that each subsequent cesarean section pregnancy “significantly increased” the risks of “placenta accreta, cystotomy, bowel injury, ureteral injury, and ileus, the need for postoperative ventilation, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, and blood transfusion requiring 4 or more units.”^[7]Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries

Use of Forceps or Vacuum

In our modern age, we boast of our enlightenment and technological sophistication, yet we still find remnants of barbarism haunting our hospitals. The use of forceps represents such a regressive practice—one that is more fitting for the primitive witch doctor than the enlightened physician of the first world. Do not allow these vestiges of barbarism, disguised as they may be in the garb of white-coated practitioners, to lay a hand on your baby with this brutal instrument. Such an act is not only detrimental to the well-being of the mother but to the innocent child as well.

---

Why C-Section Is Almost Always a Bad Idea

The contemporary intervention of the cesarean section calls into question the wisdom of the human physiological system and represents a departure from the principles of science. The notion that a birth must occur within a specific, humanly designated window of time, or that the mother’s perceived risk profile is sufficient reason for intervention, is a flawed and misguided approach. The body does not err, and any delay in birth is a purposeful and calculated decision by nature—not a mistake. It is for this reason that cesarean sections often result in significant harm, as they ignore the innate knowledge and timing of the body. While there may be exceptional circumstances where assistance is required, the use of force—be it through forced cesarean sections or forceps—has no place in the birthing process.

Just to give you a simple example: placenta previa—in which the placenta partially or entirely obstructs the uterus, impeding the baby’s passage—occurs at a rate nearly twice as high in cesarean births as in natural vaginal births.^[8]Risk of placenta previa in second birth after first birth cesarean section: a population-based study and meta-analysis

My intention here is not to highlight the specific dangers of placenta previa in cesarean sections, but rather to emphasize that any apparent complications in birth are indicative of the body’s attempts to address an underlying issue. If we were to prioritize the mother’s needs, listen to her, and support her physiological system, the majority of complications could be averted.

We must conclude by making it absolutely clear: no mother who has previously chosen a C-section should feel judged. Your choice should not be subject to condemnation. Our only aim is to provide you with the most accurate and reliable information so you can make the wisest decision for your health and the well-being of your child.