With all these Caesarean births are we going to end up with mothers who can't give birth naturally? (genes)

Question

The genes are allowed to continue because of a lowered mortality rate. I'm not saying it is a bad thing that the mortality rate has dropped, or that any woman's pregnancy is any of my business.
I feel I'm asking out of interest in sociology and medicine.

http://www.ican-online.org/
* Cesarean rate for 2004 is 29.1%
* The rate is up from 27.6% in 2003
* U.S. cesareans have risen 40% since 1996
* First-time cesareans are at an historical high of 20.6%
* VBAC rate fell to 9.2%
* Since 1996, the VBAC rate in the U.S. has plummeted 67%.

Answer 1

Good question. Statisically speaking yes. Though it depends on why the C section is done. Some ppl just don't want to 'push'. if that is the case then the child will inherit the ability but eventually, that ability will be lost since it is not needed.

Answer 2

That's a good question, but nothing will happen in any human time frame.

Keep in mind that evolutionary changes happen over many thousands of generations. Since humans reproduce slowly (as compared organisms like bacteria) any evolutionary selection caused by C-sections could take hundreds of thousands of years to become apparent. The human species has a lot more pressing issues to deal with in that time frame.

The decision to deliver via C-section is often a very difficult one. All of the OB/Gyns I work with hate to take a patient to the OR if it isn't necessary. However, if you wait too long and suddenly the mother or baby goes into distress, you could be forced to operate under emergency circumstances. This significantly increases maternal risk and may force you to use a faster, "classic" approach which precludes any subsequent vaginal deliveries.

Ultimately, every pregnancy is different and the decision to deliver surgically has to rest between the individual patient and physician. While C-sections generally aren't the best option, they definitely save many thousands of lives each year.

Answer 3

NO.. I think statistically speaking that the majority of women want to have natural child birth... I did with both of mine.... I don't think birth by caesarean affects the genes or chromosomes, those are pre-determined at conception. I know alot of doctors encourage women who have had a c section with their first child to have another with subsequent births of future children, but that is a myth, so perhaps to downplay the number of c sections taking place, instead doctors should be educating their patients more as to the risks involved in a c section instead of promoting it to the little princesses out there who are so squeamish or afraid of a little pain... and only make use of it during extreme circumstances where natural birth is a risk to both mother and baby, instead of trying to line thier own pockets with more green because they can run up the hospital bills twice and 3 times as much with c sections than natural child birth (then there stands the issue with health care and insurance companies, doesn't it?)

Answer 4

No, I don't think so as it's mostly upper blue-collar women who don't want the birth to interfere with work, and wealthier women who schedule around their calendars. Women in those positions aren't likely to want many children. Others who are insured and have plans where they can choose Cesarean births opt for them and drive up insurance rates for everyone. Some doctors , prefer the surgeries because they make more money.

I don't doubt that some uninsured who fall through the cracks are put in danger because of hospital policies that have to go through so much red tape before an emergency c-section is permitted. Many of those mothers are more likely to sustain future pregnancy problems or inability to carry to term.

Answer 5

cesareans have dropped the mortality rate drastically. They are only used if the mother won't dilate to at least a 10.. I don't think we will ever wind up with mothers who cannot end up without the ability to birth naturally. if that were true gays and lesbians would be able to reproduce in fact there would all kinds of mutations if this could actually be.

Answer 6

No. Lets face it-we do C-sections in less than 10% of live births in non - third world countries. We may see evolution everywhere we look, but not deevolution (going backwards). I mean, think about the direction of evolution in the question you are asking. If there were no vaginal deliveries, and the female pelvis/perineum developed so that there was no birth canal, than those who were not exposed to the knife would die. Where would that leave us? Women laying fertilized eggs like other animals? We branched off that tree millions of years ago.

Answer 7

There was time when Cesarean births were medical necessity,but now it is a choice.Women do not want to in labour for more than few minutes.They do not care if it is good for them in the long run.

Answer 8

I don't think so at all. Natural births still outnumber the caesarean delivery rate. Every one should mind their own pregnancy/birth/delivery, and not pass judgement on others. That's why we have choices and the freedom to choose in some cases. In others, it is medically necessary.

Answer 9

I watched a Caesarean Section being performed on TV before...

I found it utterly revolting. Ew. Why. I don't think I would be able to do that. I'd rather give birth naturally (with meds, of course) than have my baby ripped out of my stomach and end up with a sore, guly, scarred stomach!

Answer 10

Almost certainly not.

First, there are still plenty of standard births, as far as I know they still hold the majority.

Second, humans don't have much time left to evolve. Within another few centuries at most, either we will have killed ourselves off our modified ourselves far beyond what evolution could do in the same amount of time.