Ok, So the things required for my point

1) If you have a choice to save lives or not, with no negative effects for choosing to save lives, and you choose to not save lives, you are a murderer

The things required for your point, that are not required for my point

1) A world full of policemen (ie no farmers, doctors, researchers, teachers etc) would lead to less deaths

2) If you have a choice to dedicate your entire life to something, and that would save lives, then to not do that, you are a murderer.

My argument is logical and morally defensible (that's not to say that contrary beliefs aren't logical and morally defensible) The policeman argument is silly, illogical and impractical.

You made a silly argument that had some similarities to my argument, then you raised objections to the silly argument you raised, and then you claimed that those objections to your silly argument meant that my argument also was silly.

That is exactly what strawmanning is.

I completely disagree with the idea, it would violate what I consider some pretty fundamental human rights.

I do agree with the idea that everybody should, say when they get their drivers license, have to actively choose either to be or not to be an organ donor. I reckon the main reason people aren't one is apathy.

Your point is certainly not logical, since it violates the definition of the word murderer. Saying that it's "morally defensible" is nothing, everything is morally defensible according to some weird morals. The "no negative effects" part is also your own assumption, not implied by any logic. To some people with certain beliefs, having their loved ones losing organs after death is certainly negative.

Obviously my counter "argument" was silly, it's called reductio ad absurdum... The burden of proof is on you to show the lack of silliness in calling people murderers when they haven't murdered anyone.

Yes, that is my point. You are using Reducto ad absurdum, as opposed to debating the point fairly and maturely.

That actually is not legal. You can't choose who gets your organs after you die. After you're dead, if you're an organ donor, the person who needs them the most gets them.

I meant organs from living people, for example their family. Basically I'm saying that people who opt out could only receive direct donations from living people.

Nope...if they do agree to organ/blood donation, maybe a reduction in sentence or something, but not compulsory.

That could be highly controversial too, because it amounts to saying "either give us your organs or we'll keep you longer in prison".

In a perfect world it could make sense, but you know that some judges would be accused of giving overly harsh sentences to encourage organ donations, etc etc...

This subject is a minefield, and I guess it should be...

Interesting...that's something I hadn't thought of. You're quite right that it could lead to controversy/corruption. I suppose I'll have to scrap my idea and stick with the simple "nope."