YR posits oppressors who provide reasonable justifications for their actions based on the child's own interest, and who have no awareness of intending to oppress, and get no clear benefit. It just doesn't sound like oppression.

You could say the same about women in male dominated societies...

It is only your Western post-First Wave values which make you not consider your paragraph as valid about women.

Yeah, maybe we should let some 14-year-olds live away from home and get jobs. But their having some fundamental right to self-determination doesn't really explain much. It's about whether that particular 14-year-old can handle it, whether rare cases justify a complicated bureaucracy, whether the system will be abused, etc.

I question whether that would be rare. I don't see any reason why it would be rare. But it sure need not be complicated. All you have to do is invert the burden of proof. Instead of the minor proving that they can handle it so they must be allowed; Ethan Edwards should have to prove they cannot handle it so they must be disallowed.

If the 14-year-old wants to kill himself, many of us would want to intervene, judging that THAT'S not a form of self-determination we support.

Ah! The consent fag position!

Sorry, my standard is not consent, because you can never prove consent, you telepath! My standard is harm. And killing yourself scores a little high in the harm scale.

Still no inconsistency. I demand not of minors something different than what I do from adults.