I agree with you to an extent however that is not what you said. I realize it may have been a figure of speech which is why I asked about where you came up with that figure. The real figure would be no where near the majority.
Further people have and will continue to die regardless of the policy chosen. So the real question is not how many people are you wiling to die but rather how many MORE people would die if you did "nothing" (although I dont think anyone is actually suggesting we do literaly NOTHING).
And what would be the benefit if any of choosing a policy that resulted to a greater number of deaths. Would that benefit offset the higher death total?
