Amusingly, an attempt to minimize harm is *precisely* what you were arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position "We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must) "reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so explicitly.
It's not a strawman, it is exactly what (some) people were arguing.