Once more, this is a matter of apples and oranges. Some men do place a low value on certain children (Moslems don't think much of Jewish children, for instance). This is a value judgment, which is precisely about which we were speaking.
However, simply because one places a low value on a specific person does not mean he can do whatever he pleases with that person -- especially if he expects to live in a social grouping. "Morals," when one comes right down to it, are simply ground rules which members of groups have agreed upon to limit conflict within the group and hence promote survival of the group. And, typically within a group the members place very high value upon one another. However, when dealing with other groups our perception of their members' values is more variable. Hence you get racists, and whatnot, which supports the view that human value is purely arbitrary. And this is all we are discussing -- whether human worth is subjective and arbitrary (which the evidence supports) or objective and absolute, for which there is no evidence.
You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Did Stalin care about your "social grouping"? He grouped himself with other murderers who thought like he did. Ground rules have no moral force whatsoever - I have my own rules - I spit on yours, how can I be wrong? The survival of the group? Don't you see how absurd this is? Someone should have told Mao and Pol Pot that natural selection demands that they stop slaughtering people! You have now exposed yourself as a moral relativist - it was inevitable. You must know that you can't win this argument. Every time you post, you will be digging yourself a deeper hole.
Who cares about your perception of anyone's actions?! Stalin murdered 30 million people - do you think they care what YOU think about it? Yes, I already know that you think human worth is subjective - that is precisely the position I have ripped to shreds.