I don't find it needless to try to save children's skin from cancer.
..but you don't seem to have the same affinity for/opinion of trying to save a 15 year old girl from the complications that can be associated with an abortion during puberty?
Anyone having a surgical or chemical abortion may face complications such as perforation, scarring, hemorrhaging, infection,
higher risks of future infertility,miscarriages, ectopic pregnancy,and premature birth of future children.
...right from the CDC.
You say "apples and oranges"...yes, we know, as a process itself, they're two different things...however, the reason we're having this discussion is because of the potential health impacts an activity could have on a minor, so in that sense, it's not "apples and oranges", it's the same thing...that thing being "Does the government have the right to restrict the activity of a 15-16 year old based on a health complication that might happen?"
Saying Yes to one, and No to the other is being inconsistent.
There's only 3 intellectually consistent positions to have on this one
A) A person has right to their own body and can do whatever they'd like to it (with parental consent if they're under 18)
B) Same as A, but regardless of age, no consent needed
C) The government has the right to "save you from yourself"
Gotta pick one of those three...
You can't just pick a little of A and a little of B when it's convenient for your political stance. Our legislators doing that very thing (self-contradicting) is why we have so many screwed up laws in this nation...