Does it make a difference between natural birth or a cesarean section?

Lately, I've been following various debates on Facebook regarding maternal capacity for those who choose to have a natural birth or a cesarean section. The discussions get heated, and insults fly. Each woman believes she possesses the right formula to be the perfect mother. Reading each comment, all I can think of is that this controversy exactly reflects the anguish of not having a formula for success in the role of being a mother. The need to cling to certainties to feel a little less anxious about what is undoubtedly the most challenging task there is: raising a good, fair, healthy, and above all, happy human being (as that's what most mothers desire for their children nowadays).

We always have to consider that each case is unique and should be treated as such. However, it is undeniable that when everything is going well, it is ideal for the baby to be born when both the mother's body and the baby's body signal that they are ready. Scheduling a cesarean section for the doctor's convenience is not considering the well-being of the mother-baby duo first, especially since when choosing a profession, individuals should take into account the demands it entails. It is very different to consider a woman's emotional capacity to assess whether natural childbirth is suitable when it might lead her to stress that harms both.

In any case, this text aims to address the specificity I have observed in questioning maternal capacity based on their "choices" (which are not always actual choices), such as the type of birth, exclusive breastfeeding, and other issues.

Anyone who starts trying to conceive and encounters some difficulty already faces the lack of control we have over our own bodies. We don't decide when we want to get pregnant; our bodies decide for us. Additionally, we rely on another person who also has no control over their own body: the baby's father.