Actually, your entire post was hucksterism.
Very little actual sense in it at all, from conflating the science-ignorant goat-herders of the past with today's deep understanding of the process, to your strawman extraordinaire that tries to equate suffering being absent due to no actual creature existing, and the suffering of a formed human being.
Oh, and plants with feelings. Oy. Typically, and certainly in the case of plants, multiple, interrelated systems exist in balance; when that balance is disturbed, these systems alter in ways that compensate to some degree. Flowers turn to follow the sun, grass breaks through concrete, trees bud and emit toxins when various bogs come to visit, the Venus Fly Trap snaps shut when its trigger hairs are disturbed.
None of this is, or implies, "suffering"; there is zero evidence supporting the idea that you can have suffering without a nervous system embodying a conscious component or something analogous to one. Zero. Plants, as far as science knows, have no such thing -- it's never, ever been demonstrated.
Groups of undifferentiated cells don't have any systems that can support consciousness either (and they react even less than plants do, because they don't have systems above the cellular level at this point. Differentiation does not occur until a ways along in the process, and even then, it take a while longer before you have functional systems.
You're really, really out in cloud-cuckoo land. Straight up wacky. It's always distressing to encounter arguments as deeply based in ignorance as yours are. I'd like to think we're better than that, but there you are, definitively proving otherwise.