In Family: How parents treat their children.
By birth, the child is naturally seen as special to the parents that bore the child.
It is a specialty no other children of other parents will receive from these parents.
Therefore the parents have put all in their effort and care and love to fulfil this specialty of the child, regardless of the child's behavior.
Nonetheless, the child is no different from any child in the world, as a human being.
Thus, we are to also love others who are human, who are created in the image of God, while never denying the special parental love.
This is the fruit of predestination.
Then, to deny predestination, is to say that all children deserve equal love from any parents, dependent (perhaps) on their geographical distance or behavior: If they are evil, then no one will love them.
The line between selfish benefit for one's own children and the existence of special love for one's own children is therefore blurred.
So I would be more inclined to say, that those who reject predestination, have higher tendency to either despise other people's children or ignore their parental role in bringing up their own children properly before God.
And to defend against any thought that may rise to claim all people are God's children and therefore deserving equal love, I would say, all people are God's creation, but not all are God's children.
In evangelism, we like to say things we are sure of. Hence, again with the arminianism, because we do not want to say to another: You are God's child...but I don't know for sure. So have you "chosen" to accept Christ?
But then again, how certain we can be of one's claim when one says: I am sure I have chosen Jesus as my savior?
Unless we include another heresy that one could lose one's salvation.
Why the need of much hypothetical theories? Is it not easier to say: I believe you are a child of God and I earnestly pray and hope God will continue to be gracious unto you in testifying in the end that you are indeed, His elect!