If this is the case, it makes no sense to me. Why would members of a Church that extols the virtue of agency prefer to force someone to make a “right choice” by making the “wrong choice” illegal?

Ah, you see? There’s the rub: you are falling into the typical liberal trap of characterizing religious objection to abortion as having anything at all to do with choice. People who oppose abortion do so out of a concern for the life of the baby and often believe that abortion is the same as murder, since the baby is a person too (in the eyes of pro-lifers). In other words, no matter how NARAL, NOW, or Planned Parenthood try to characterize pro-lifers, it doesn’t change the fact that “choice” for pro-lifers is a distraction to the real question: does abortion kill a human being? If it does, then “choice” is irrelevant, just like in the case of murder. Sure, you are free to choose to murder someone, but even liberals, although opposed to the just consequences of the murder (i.e. the death penalty), still wouldn’t say simply “oh, they have freedom of choice to murder someone, so although I personally don’t murder or support murder, I support their ‘choice’.” Instead, murder is outlawed, regardless of whether someone can choose to murder or not.

I consider myself somewhat liberal, but I cannot support gay marriage (and I know not all agree with me on this, and it was a hard decision to come to) because marriage is supposed to be eternal and although it is not, in these days, always religious, it originally was, and that marriage is also in the realm of God. Whether or not that is in actuality, it is what it is SUPPOSED to be. I cannot support abortion, because I believe the choice has been made, number one, and second, the child’s right to life is being taken away. Which is more important? The right to life I believe is more important than the right to take life.

I support the right of a person to purchase tobacco, but I do not support that person’s right to smoke in my house or in my face and compromise my health and that of my baby and my other children.

Why is it, that we are so afraid of being politically incorrect that we are willing to allow anyone to do whatever they want, no matter the consequences? When someone exercises these so-called “rights” someone else’s rights are being eroded. Often, fatally. So whose rights are more important?

The other “liberal trap” is that making something illegal in some way takes away the right to choose. God has told us all of the things that are eternally “illegal” but that does not limit our right to choose those things.

For example, in some societies, it is illegal to speak out against the government. That, however, will not necessarily keep you out of the celestial kingdom. You cannot absolutely equate things against society’s laws with being against God’s laws.

As to other issues besides abortion, perhaps you are right that gay marriage should be seen on the same level as smoking tobacco–I’m not sure about it myself. I noted at numerous places in the Bloggernacle that I would personally never have supported a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as between a man and a woman if it had not been for that First Presidency announcement last fall. But, I am willing to support the Church in this as well, if the Church finds a constitutional amendment necessary (though, to be fair, the First Presidency announced that the Church was in favor of an amendment and not of any particular amendment that was floating around the different US states at election time). As to tobacco, I fully agree with you that people should have the choice to use or not. Of course, if the tobacco industry is committing fraud, then that is a legitimate concern for society and one worthy of government action/oversight.

The question is never about choice — the question is about consequences. We all have freedom of choice as a gift from God and integral part of our probationary state, but freedom from consequences (both temporal and eternal) is another thing.

As for the abortion example: The abortion sides would be more appropriately labeled “pro-consequence” for those who oppose abortions and “anti-consequence” for abortion supporters.