Excellent points, Richard.
I think the issue of the language we use is a critical factor in our success in addressing childhood trauma. By talking about "abuse" and "abusers" we seem to be forgetting that, in most (if not all) cases, the parent (or "abuser") was him or herself traumatized as a child and is actually not in control when inflicting similar treatment on their own child. I think in our common useage, "abuse" may even imply active intent, and only a patholgically disturbed individual would plan on hurting his/her own child. That is not the population we are focused on.
This is one reason that in my work in Vermont I am focused (although not exclusively) on the adults. Traumatized adults are suffering tremendously, even as they inflict tremendous pain on their children. And so the cycle intensifies...
But to engage these adults and so interrupt that cycle, the language we use must be compassionate and inclusive, not stigmatizing and distancing.
To accomplish that, however, we have to deal with our own visceral reaction against the deeply disturbing concept that a parent is, in fact, hurting his/her own child. (That phrasing always catches me, as well. We react when anyone "big" picks on anyone "small," as we should. But we know at a very deep level that there is something even worse at work when a parent hurts their own child.)
The parallels here with the early work in domestic violence, which was largely focused on men battering women, and which tended to see the men as "bad" are obvious. I know in Vermont that domestic violence has come a very long way in addressing the men as victims themselves and providing treatment.
But that doesn't make what is essentially a paradigm-shift easy.