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

"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."This is basically a concession. If an embryo does not experience suffering at the moment of conception then suffering cannot start simultaneously with conception."From the moment of conception, we are in a world of suffering. We may or may not experience suffering at the moment of conception."The resolution was that suffering and mercy start at conception. If we go by the first sentence and assume suffering starts before conception the resolution is negated. If we go by the second sentence and say suffering starts after conception the resolution is negated. There is no way Pro can win at this point. He is not even arguing his own resolution anymore."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"First of all I have already proven an embryo is incapable of suffering at the moment of conception. Second of all even if you were right that doesn't mean all embryos experience suffering at the moment of conception.Mercy and SufferingAn important thing to note is that only a living being is capable of showing mercy. While you can be "at the mercy of" something this is not a correct definition of mercy. Nothing else can make the choice. The mother shows no mercy during the moment of conception as usually she is not capable of inflicting punishment or pain. A mother's body does not show mercy. All that it does is inevitable. The death argument is just semantics. According to that we are all suffering all the time. This does not fit the definition of suffering. Anything after conception is irrelevant as your claim was that suffering and mercy start at conception which there is no evidence of.AfterlifeI am not aware of any atheists that believe they will exist forever. Either way to uphold the resolution you must prove this is true. I believe that death is final and you have shown no evidence to prove otherwise. Pro keeps referencing god but has yet to prove he exists.DistressThe growth process is not a process of distress and there is no evidence that it is. The need of provision does not indicate the lack of it. Distress is a lack of provision. The computer example is laughable. Your computer is incapable of experiencing anything. If you believe otherwise I would recommend a High School level Biology or Computer class.Pro's argument is that although an embryo cannot experience anxiety... it is anxious. There is no logic here.ConclusionThere is literally zero evidence supporting Pro's claim. Any Middle Schooler could look through Pro's argument and realize it does not use logic, but pleas to an authority he has not proven exists. He makes circular claims and does not understand the resolution he is defending. The Burden of Proof is still unfulfilled.