It's not obviously child abuse. If you go back 100 years old children were abused far more than we possibly could simply by malnutrition, disease, lack of shelter. Giving them something that may or may not harm them is not obviously child abuse.
I don't understand the argument here. 100 Years ago they were abused more, but last year they were abused less. So increasing the dosage of the abuse is ok as long as it doesn't exceed your random benchmark of 100 years ago?
Technology is harmful, starting from fire and farming. So what?
All completely bogus. You already know it's bogus because it's based on the science of psychology. One of the most dismal sciences there are.
2. (and this is really the most important part) literally every claim in your list was later refuted by... wait for it... better data. So, again for the cheap seats, data plz.