Oh, I see what you mean, I think: yes, “abuse” does often imply a positive intent to do harm, I suppose (though it can also simply connote a reckless indifference).

But sure, we can pick a less pejorative term, if you like, although if society ever gets to the point where indoctrinating children with mythological, factually incorrect mumbo-jumbo is explicitly proscribed (and Heaven knows that isn’t in the cards anytime soon), by that point the parents who do so will be acting in full knowledge that they are breaking the law.

I certainly agree with your first paragraph.

I’m not at all sure that I understand what you mean that the abusers would have to be “willfully negligent” or that such an accusation “won’t stick” if the parents actually believe the doctrine they promulgate. What about, say, a pair of Christian Scientist parents who, in their pious confidence that God will get the job done, refuse to provide necessary medical treatment for an ailing child?

Why should sincere belief in a pernicious doctrine ameliorate the abuse? The harm done to the child is the same either way.

Obviously there are degrees: brainwashing a child to deny the facts of human origins, and to reject rational inquiry in favor of mental enslavement to Iron Age mythology, while a horrible thing to do, is arguably a lesser offense than depriving her of medical care. But the principle is the same.

As for indoctrination, I think it usually doesn’t rise to the level of child abuse. The “abusers” would have to be willfully negligent — and that usually won’t stick if they actually believe the “doctrine” they promulgate. We might eventually get to a point where we can say that no reasonable person would believe such things. But we’re still a long way from that point.