Cesarean sections per se are nothing new. Hence their being named after Julius Caesar, who was allegedly born this way.
What is new is the survival of the mother.
Be careful where you are headed, or you will condemn every medical intervention against any ailment that raw Darwinism would have “weeded out.”
A trait that causes mothers and often infants to die in childbirth is not one that is favorable at all to the survival of mankind when another collapse inevitably comes along. Show me medical history that indicates “Caesaren section” in use for more or less vanity purposes prior to the twentieth century. The legendary association with Julius Caesar ... did his mother survive it? I do not recall, and suspect not if indeed he was brought into the world in this manner.
I’m pointing out that these medical advances, some for vanity, some out of sympathy for childless couples and some whose purpose eludes me, have consequences that will be dire when the time comes that those procedures are no longer available. I have no problem philosophically with the notion of “selection” leading to the furtherance of favorable traits and the elimination of unfavorable ones; anyone who grew up on a farm sees this every day.
Attempting to apply this to human beings has a nasty and fairly recent history. What we’re discussing is the inverse of that other than “designer babies,” though. Inadvertantly but deliberately selecting for negative reproductive traits on a widespread basis is not the most wise thing to be doing, regardless of ones’ political, religious or philosophical orientation, and that is just what is occurring in the instances I mentioned, as well as others.