One of those unwinnable arguments.
Accepting that engine failures are increasingly rare events, and most of those who eject will be recovered anyway, there will still be increased airframe loses and some aircrew loses over hostile or inhospitable terrain or water.
I remember figures being produced to show that, if one offsets the costs of only buying half the number of engines and account for lifetime fuel consumption and maintenance, then even with the increased number of loses an F-16 fleet would be cheaper over its life than an F-18 fleet. I presume the replacement aircrew recruitment and training costs were included in the calculations.
Whilst an emotive argument, I don’t believe it will be a significant factor in the privy rent d3cision - but perhaps in defending it.