It should be a no-brainer...

... that the wrongness of a child's rape, murder, starvation &tc aren't subject to the question of whether the perpetrator was a parent. The act is wrong in and of itself whenever it is perpetrated upon a person. Anyone who believes that they should withhold their judgement about the torture of a child until they can determine whether that child was property in regard to the perpetrator has no moral standards.

That people aren't property is evident to everyone who is able to frame such a statement. While people have historically tried to treat others as property, no slave owner has accepted slavery when it was their turn. While some former slaves have become slave-owners; one invariably finds that they weren't chattel-slaves, but were in a condition to buy their freedom or graduate to another status. Even such conditional slavery is wrong. But its easier to see how a slave could become master when the condition set by their society isn't one of property.

Freedom is also self-evidently good; not just to those who have secured it for themselves, but to the society which extends it to others. Each society is impoverished to the degree that it restricts freedom based on viewing a class of people as chattel, whether by virtue of Race, Gender or some other involuntary quality. And those who have held onto slavery longest have suffered social retardation the longest. Youth emancipation is the last frontier of abolitionism. But even those who don't hold with youth emancipation agree that the notion of inalienable rights applies to all.

There will always be some who argue otherwise and seek to reduce people to servility. But those who deny freedom to others do not deserve their liberty.

This has nothing to do with collectivism. It has to do with the very concept of the worth of the individual.

Dante