>>If the Bible tells you what's best for you, surely it tells others what's best for them.<<
Yes, but having free will, they have the God given right to choose whether or not to play by those rules. If anyone does utterly and completely do just that, they don't need the blood of Christ.
>>Do you really mean to abdicate all responsibility for protecting the weak? Shirley you support laws against raping women and child abuse, even though you are neither a woman nor a child<<
No, I believe in the concept of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". I don't see it as protecting the "weak" however. I see it protecting all citizens from those who would do them harm. But if they want to harm themselves, or exercise risk (mountain climbing, bungee jumping, skiing, riding in a car without a seatbelt on, stepping into a bathtub without anti-skid stickers) that is utterly their business. And when I do it, it is utterly mine.
"Yes, but having free will, they have the God given right to choose whether or not to play by those rules."
No, they have the God-given *freedom* to choose wrongly. A freedom is not the same thing as a right, and there can never be a right to do wrong.
"If anyone does utterly and completely do just that, they don't need the blood of Christ."
That is contrary to the Bible.
"I don't see it as protecting the "weak" however. I see it protecting all citizens from those who would do them harm."
I would prefer to see those who are able protect themselves, rather than to abdicate all right to violence to the state.
"But if they want to harm themselves"
What about those who risk their lives to save the injured? The medical bills of those who can't pay? The children left behind? It is very rare that an act of lethal stupidity affects only the actor.