"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.
>>That is contrary to the Bible.<<
On that point I disagree strongly. It is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity (for me).
>>The medical bills of those who can't pay?<<
That is the camels nose in the tent. That argument can be used to control the minutia of peoples lives. It can be used to force people to wear helmets, or to abolish the activities that "necessitate" such use. The argument can be used to require the use of seatbelts, or abolish private cars in favor of massive public transportation.
I will never consider it to be a legitimate argument.
"It is very rare that an act of lethal stupidity affects only the actor."
Now YOU are being "extreme". This is a typical liberal view, such as everyone must be forced to wear seat belts because it'll drive up everyone's insurance costs. And/or because if the man dies (allegedly from no seat belt), he has affected his poor children.
Absurd. EVERYTHING affects everything else; you cannot get away from that fact. This is a strawman argument. So if it was truly applied, NOTHING would be legal because everything we do affects, even in trickle-down fashion, everything else in the world.