Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception.....One or the other will be forever.

Thank you Con for taking me up on this challenge. I hope the wording is clear enough so we can have a focused debate. I did not assert that an embryo can experience suffering, I did assert that mercy and suffering both start simultaneously from the moment of conception. I will not argue anything about 20 weeks from conception. That is covered in my assertion that suffering and mercy start at conception, and I will explain that concept. The debate here was intended to address the problem of pain and suffering and if there is any hope for relief. From the moment of conception, we are in a world of suffering. We may or may not experience suffering at the moment of conception. If you destroy an embryo at the moment of conception, it can be said that the embryo suffered damage which destroyed it, though the embryo may or may not have felt the experience. Surely it can be observed that the embryo was trying to live. It will experience suffering soon enough as we are all conceived in a world of suffering This is not meant to be an abortion is justified or abortion is unjustified debate. The debate is about the possibility of the relief of all suffering and the freedom from all pain. From the moment of conception, the embryo grows under mercy in a world of suffering. It is the mercy of the mother which protects the embryo and does not kill it. It is the mercy of the mother's body which provides the nutrients for the embryo to grow. Surely, the mother's tolerance of the baby inside her which is sure to bring her pain is merciful to the baby from the moment of conception. Since the process of death is working in the embryo from the moment of conception, it is suffering if it experiences it or not. We all have in our genes from the moment of conception a defect which will allow disease to kill us if nothing else does. Eventually, the suffering that begins at conception will work death completely in our bodies, unless some miracle changes our bodies so that death is gone from us. After birth, we are still at the mercy of somebody or something.......whether you think it's nature or God, we need provision for our bodies. Both nature and God are capably of depriving us of the provision that allows us to continue in this world of suffering until the death that works suffering little by little is finished in this world. If it's nature that is merciful to us, then it's an impersonal mercy but we still at the mercy of nature and there is nobody to thank and nobody to ask for help when the final moment of death in this world comes. If it's God who is merciful to us, then we can thank Him. When that time comes and suffering in this world is complete, the question is does it continue forever under mercy or do we have complete relief from the suffering that was present from conception. This is the part that is more difficult for me to explain. This can only be explained by referring to God. We all know the meaning of the word God so I will not debate the definition of "God". The atheist must believe that he either ceases to exist when he dies, or that he continues to exist with no God ruling over him. With no God ruling over him, the atheist is his own god and can no longer be harmed by death and will no longer be suffering the process of death which began at conception; so the atheist has no more need of mercy from nature or from God whom he asserted was never there to show mercy. Also, the atheist in this hypothesis would have no need of mercy since he can no longer be harmed. For the atheist, whether he completely ceases to exist or whether he goes on forever as a spark of life which always existed and always will, both mercy and suffering would have to end together. I suppose an atheist could believe that there is no God to rule over him, but there are other beings that could cause him to suffer troubles after his time in this world is over.........but then the atheist would be at the mercy of those other beings and still in a universe of suffering, so mercy and suffering would then continue to go on forever. I contend that God will not allow mercy and suffering to go on together forever. There is no way to separate mercy and suffering without God. There is no way to be free from suffering if God does not remove and confine away from us all things that cause pain and suffering. Pain and suffering, the very process of death which begins at conception, are given under mercy. God wants us to ask Him for mercy, He wants us to see that only He can provide the mercy we need. He will not allow pain and suffering to continue forever. It is against His character to allow pain and suffering to go on forever while he tolerates it under His mercy. One or the other must end for each individual. If we will not come to God for mercy, we will never have mercy when only God can give it at the moment of death. Ok, a very difficult topic and that's the way I wanted it. Do we deserve to suffer of do we deserve mercy. For now we have both. For forever, we will have one of the other, the two cannot go on together forever. With or without God, mercy and suffering cannot go on together forever. My opponent defines suffering as: " The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship". While I don't think definitions of easily understood and commonly used words are necessary, I will build with this definition to show an embryo suffers from the moment of conception. The growth process is a process of distress. The first cell begins processes with need of provision to continue. The processes begin at the moment of conception. The first time a cell divides, it is a distress caused by growth. When a child loses it's baby teeth, it is a distress caused by growth. Suffering begins at conception. It is hard for the conceived cell to implant itself in the womb so it can grow. Whether or not the conceived life feels pain as we do, it is still suffering from the moment of conception and my opponents definition of suffering still fits. The definition is "pain, distress, or hardship", any one of these three things shows suffering. If a rock falls on my computer and breaks it, my computer suffered hardship even though it did not feel it. From the moment of conception, the force of growth causes distress as the embryo needs provision of nutrients and protection for a safe place to grow. The embryo needs mercy from the mother or it will suffer complete destruction. To end the life process would put hardship.....fatal hardship...... on the embryo since it is doing nothing other than trying to survive and grow. I really did not want to debate whether life begins at conception or not, but I guess it is debatable in the way I framed the topic. I hope this debate will focus on the main topic........suffering and mercy will not go on together forever. One or the other must end. This debate really is my assertion against the Yin-Yang eternity idea, and against Atheism. I will try to steer arguments away from abortion. I do not want to debate abortion here. My opponent insists suffering does not begin at conception, as the conceived life is not emotionally developed to know distress by emotion. The growth process of the conceived cell is a process of anxiety for the cell, it is anxious to divide and grow and it is anxious to implant itself in the womb. The question is not about the level of emotional experience. The anxiety is suffered because of the desire to live in an environment that could negate the growth which was implanted in the egg, the growth that needs mercy to continue through the suffering that starts at conception and continues until time in this world ends for the conceived person.