A valuable person is not necessarily a meaningful person. And a meaningful person is not necessarily valuable.
Value and meaning in life are not correlated, and are different categorical traits.
Furthermore, not all humans are born with inherent value. Unwanted children and abortions prove this statement outright. But unwanted children and abortions can still provide meaning, as they do with political parties vying to accuse each other of responsibility over unwanted children and abortions.
It’s more than obvious that some children are born with value in life, and many are not. Not all people are valuable, or intrinsically valuable.
That statement seems confused. You say some humans aren’t inherently valuable because others fail to see them as valuable. But you’re talking about two different things. Inherent value isn’t ascribed like that; it’s inherent. So saying that some children seem unwanted implies a failure to ascribe value to those children, rather than a lack of inherent value. It could just as well be that those children are inherently valuable but nobody bothers to recognize it.
Some of the confusion is only a linguistic one of using words which derive from traits, and categories. Values ascribe to traits, categories to meaning. Categories are either accepted or rejected, as far as a meaning is concerned. You either mean something by a word or not. Once that threshold is passed, the various traits are examined, wether the meant trait is one which postscripts a value.
It’s not about “seeming unwanted”. Some children actually are unwanted.
Assuming that value does not coincide with other people, subjectively, then what is the value of a dysfunctional life form, that is born crippled, mutated, cancerous, diseased, and near to death? Doesn’t health have value. Not all children are born healthy, on top of the fact that not all children are born wanted by the parents.
Put 2 and 2 together, both parents don’t want the child, plus the child is severely crippled and diseased. You have the recipe for a valueless organism. It has no objective or subjective value. It probably will die, if it’s not aborted right away anyway.
Not all humans are born valuable. Many are, but, many are not.
Lack of health or loving parents still isn’t necessarily a lack of value. You’re just saying they lack some things that seem valuable to you, which isn’t the same as saying they are totally devoid of value.
I am putting two and two together. That’s sort of the problem. We will all die, so that’s no indication of value. Again, they lack things that seem valuable to you, which is fine. But that’s not the same as saying they are objectively without value.
Are you assuming that people aren’t inherently valuable at all?
You still haven’t shown that to be the case. Why aren’t all humans born valuable?
I’m not sure I understand your objection. I’m not saying all humans are born inherently valuable, to be sure. I’m just saying that you’ve yet to show how someone can be completely devoid of value.
And there is a reason why I targeted objective value specifically. Inherent value is value that is a permanent, inseparable part of a thing. Subjectively ascribed value generally isn’t permanent as such since it ceases to exist the moment the subject changes his mind or is taken out of the picture. Objective value, on the other hand, is recognized but not determined subjectively, which means it has a better chance of being a permanent fixture.
I agree that value and meaning are different things.
If we wanted to we could divide meaning and value up into smaller multiple classifications too.
Intrinsic value is based on some assumptions that nobody actually has to make.
If we all had to make those assumptions, intrinsic value would be considered objective.