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

Con wants a concession, I gave none. A conceived person suffers distrss as it strives to survive, and it needs mercy to survive. Con's own definitions support what he is try to deny. Con's denial of the embryo's distress as it tries to survive does not relieve it's suffering. If Con wants to kill it before it can scream, that's Con's business. This is not what the debate is about. I have carried my argument and continue to do so in saying suffering and mercy start at conception and only one or the other can continue forever. Death is prgrammed into the person from the moment of conception. to survive is a battle and suffers loss from the start.....time is lost as the battle is fought, the conceived cell battles to survive and it suffers the loss of time, each moment from the time it was conceived is lost as it suffers in distress depending on the mercy of it's mother. I'm being repetitive, conceding nothing to Con in this debate. Con want's to deny the right to life during the first twenty weeks after conception, that's Con's business. If he can kill a baby before it can scream or teach others that it's ok or good to do so, that's on him. Can we get past this into the bigger question, what will eternity be for you? Will it be relief from suffering or will it be denial of mercy? The death argument is not just semantics it is a fact. From the moment you are conceived, death is working in you and yoru clock is ticking and time is running out. From the moment you are conceived, you are suffering from the death that was inherited genetically. It is not semantics. Con is trying to deny that suffering begins at conception by playing semantics and basically saying if a baby cannot scream, it is not suffering. Con is trying to make this into an excuse to kill babies before they are born. That is not what the debate is about. The debate is about eternity. Will eternity be the same as time is now, or will an individual know only suffering or only mercy. I say we each will know only suffering or only mercy, the two cannot go together. The Aheist expects to find mercy withoutt suffering because they think God is not there so death is merciful to them in relieving suffering. For the atheist, both suffering and mercy cease, they cannot go on forever because the atheist hopes he will cease to exist when his time is over. My arguement is based on logic With or without God, suffering and mercy cannot continue forever together. Death proves that there is an end to mercy if there is not an end to suffering. Too bad people are so hard set in rejecting God when He is trying in love to bring them back to Himself from the fire of Hell they deserve. Ok. If you think you do not deserve to die, I guess it's hopeless to argue. If you think you do not need mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you have the right to live now but you did not have the right to live untill 20 weeks after you were conceived, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think you are not suffering if you do not feel pain, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you are alive now without mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think death ends suffering and you need no mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think God does not have the right to cast you away like a piece of garbage to burn in hell forever, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think God is not there, tt's hopeless to argue. If you think your uncle was a monkey, it's hopelss to argue. I'm done. Thank you very much, I hope you see that you need mercy from God to be spared from the fire of hell and get saved.......He became a man to take your death, if that was not good enough for you I"m sorry for you. He is risen from the dead and you will see Him and you will know it's Him who I was trying to show you. I'm done.