Natural, natural, natural. Far better option for mother and baby in the vast majority of cases. Unless it is a true emergency, I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer CS over a vaginal delivery.
[tongue firmly in cheek here] - You KNOW babies aren't about convenience and planning. If that's your bag, don't have a baby! 
High on my list of reasons for wanting a vaginal delivery: increased chance of successful breastfeeding.
Not being able to hold my baby for that long after birth would bother me HUGELY. With Will, he had to have oxygen, so the cord was cut and he was whisked away, and I didn't get him back for nearly half an hour - and after the first couple of minutes, they were only washing him and doing his apgars! Next time I am going for skin to skin immediately, breast crawl, feed..... cut the cord only after it's turned white and stopped pulsing (unless kiddo needs oxy again...) But in any case I want washing, weighing, apgars etc. delayed until at least an hour after birth.
No way do I want to be in "recovery" while my kid needs me. And, immediately after they have been born your kid DOES need you. Unless the situation is truly dire (ie. the baby is in special care), then what s/he needs most in the entire world is your warmth, to feel your breathing and heartbeat, to hear your voice, feel your touch... And mum needs baby. Mum needs to hold the baby in her arms. Needs to bond with the baby. Needs to put the baby to her breast. (The faster she does that, the better the chances of success for breastfeeding.)
Sadly, because so many women have been pushed into CS when their baby was breech, it's now a rare doc/midwife that can deliver a breech baby. So, depending where you are, you probably DON'T have a choice if your baby is breech. Choice is being taken away from us. Birth is being medicalised. If half of what I hear is correct, in America, you have it A LOT worse than we do in the UK.... don't the doctors get paid more for a CS?! Talking to otehr mums and browsing around mums forums, its incredible HOW MANY women actually have their labour SLOWED DOWN by hospital interference, and then get rushed to an emergency CS for "failure to progress". Hmmm.
janobonano:but it's just weird to be pregnant and have the baby without your body going through the whole labor process.
Yes it IS weird. There is a reason for that. You need the hormones and such that labour and delivery and the whole shebang bring into the equation. Sacrificing them for convenience is unconscionable to me.
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that vaginal births are safer, particularly if you have already had a caesarean:
Excerpt:
There is a cultural myth in this country that cesareans are just as
safe as, if not safer than, normal vaginal birth. However, a study by
MacDorman et al., published in 2006, specifically looked at infant and
neonatal mortality rates and found that the overall neonatal death rate
for babies born by c-section is 2.9 times as high as that for babies
born via vaginal birth, and 6.7 times as high if the cause of death was
intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia.(4) Additionally, maternal
mortality is three times as high for women who have c-sections.(5)
Source
Another article
Personally, I think there are a lot of women who choose C-S because they are frightened at the prospect of "normal" births. The medical profession and the media are cultivating that fear, and it is to the detriment of mothers and babies everywhere.
Sorry. Can you tell I have a bee in my bonnet about this one?!
"Give a man a fire and he is warm for a day, but set fire to him and he is warm for the rest of his life." - Pratchett, "Jingo"