The people who actually study this say you could not be more wrong. They probably also say you should stop randomly making things up and should consider what else you're also wrong about.
"Approximately 1 in 4 children experiences child abuse or neglect in their lifetime ... 91% of the time, the perpetrator is a parent." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470337/
"Child abuse and neglect are common. At least one in seven children experienced child abuse or neglect in the past year in the United States." - https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/about/index.html#cdc...
"Statistics provided by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) ... show that in about 82% of substantiated abuse cases the alleged perpetrator was the birth parent." - https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-0509.htm (adoptive parents are in there too but counted separately, in case you're wondering)
I don't care how you slice the numbers, there's no way to get from 23% of children (90% of 25%) in the US having abusive parents to abusive parents being "extremely rare" unless your definition of "extremely rare" here is utterly insane.
As an example, your first link isn’t even a real study. Hosting some text on a .gov website doesn’t make it correct. And Statpearls is basically a low quality scammy source. But you don’t need to know that about its reputation - just reading your own link’s content would make it obvious that it is REALLY low quality - in this case written by a couple random grad students.
Since we’re cherry picking things, I’ll quote this from your own source, which shows that even when you use very broad definitions, abuse is extremely rare:
> In the United States, Child Protective Services estimated that 9 out of 1000 children are victims of child maltreatment.
Consider what else you're also wrong about.
That's in literally just the one year (2012), not across their childhood, and it's just from within cases reported to CPS. There's an absolutely massive difference between the two, and the CDC calls out CPS reports as likely under-representative.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210204022708/https://www.cdc.g...
Oh, woops, the GOP do support that last one.
Assuming you mean Muslim households and not Arab households, since not all Arabs are Muslim (today is the day you learn about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith and even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_Middle_East), everyone still eats during Ramadan, they just do it at night.
I take that to mean you understand the point?
I have never met in my entire life, in America, a family that engaged in religious starvation fasting. Not Catholic, not Jewish, not Muslim. Their fasting rules were eating bland food or only at certain times of the day. And it's for a limited period of time.
But if a family makes a child go without eating for any prolonged period of time not for a medical necessity (pre-surgery, for instance), yes, they should get a a check-in from social services.
And to go even further, if you only feed your child bad foods on purpose - like only bread and potatoes every day, when you can afford real food and diversity - you should also get a visit from social services.
I seriously don't get why you're defending people like the Turpins. Do you genuinely not understand why these laws are necessary and why it is pivotal we have basic protections for children from their parents? You don't even need to look past Hollywood with Honey booboo and Justin Bieber and all that lot to see how dangerous parents can be, let alone the insidiousness and commonality of the lower-profile cases.
Again, a number of sitting members of legislation in 2025 are arguing that children as low as the age of 12 should be allowed to be married off to adults who then (if they haven't already) rape them. And that child cannot legally get divorced without their parent's consent!
In one hearing the politician admitted to knowing an example! So you can't even say "well it never happens."
I can't believe it needs to be argued: in any just and equitable society, children have a right to a basically healthy upbringing. That means socialization, education (both physical and mental), healthcare, nutrition, and protection from those who would do them harm.
They are not "lesser people" or property of their parents. It is a practical reality that some of their rights must be ceded because they are incapable, but their parents are meant to be guardians and not owners.
Regardless - my point stands that children belong first to the parents. Using words like “abuse”, which aren’t applicable to this situation at hand, is just a way to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledging that states taking over parental judgment is explicitly authoritarian.